4800 Rivcrbend Road • Post Office Box 9003 • Boulder Colorado 80301 • 303/443-3600
CONTENTS & FILING INSTRUCTIONS
ACU VOLUME 1.0 MEMBERSHIP MATERIALS
INDEX
CURRENT CONTENTS
Front Pocket
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11-15
16
17
18
19
20-30
1982 Membership Certificate
This page
Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
ACU Position Paper
ACU Position Paper #2
None (leave empty)
Interactive Computing-Jan, 1982
Interactive Coraputing-Feb, 1982
Interactive Computing-Mar, 1982
Interactive Computing-Apr, 1982
Interactive Computing-May, 1982
Interactive Computing-Jun, 1982
Interactive Computing-Summer, 1982
None (leave empty)
Interactive Computing-Jan/Feb, 1981
Interactive Computing-Mar/Apr, 1981
Interactive Computing-May,Jun, 1981
Interactive Computing-Jul/Aug, 1981
None (leave empty)
Date: June, 1982 Copyright, 1982 Update No. M47
Association of Computer Users
An independent non-profit corporation
Formerly The Association of Time-Sharing Users and The Association of Small Computer Users
Association of Computer Users
certifies that
MEMBER’S SIGNATURE
is a member in good standing
for the year 1982
ACU BOARD OF DIRECTORS - BOULDER, COLORADO
1
Association of Computer Users
4800 Riverbend Road • Post Office Box 9003 ® Boulder A Colorado 80301 ® 303/443-3600
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
April 2, 1979
BY-LAWS
April 4, 1979
An Independent Non-Profit Corporation
Fnrmprlu The Association of Time-Sharinq Users and The Association of Small Computer Users
THE ASSOCIATION OF COMPUTER USERS, INC.
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
The undersigned person acting as incorporator under the Colorado Non-profit Corporation Act, signs, and, acknowledges the
following Articles of Incorporation for such corporation.
First: The name of the corporation is
THE ASSOCIATION OF COMPUTER USERS, INC.
Second: The period of duration is perpetual.
Third: The purposes for which the corporation is organized are:
(a) To act as non-profit independent computer user association, representing the needs of its members and promoting the
free interchange of ideas about products and services.
(b) To promote the use of computers for improved decision making and to encourage continuous improvement in the
efficiency and capability of computer products and services, and to encourage an increase in the range of products and
services available to individual computer users.
(c) To act as a clearing house and publisher of information about computer products and services.
(d) To sponsor public discussion forums, panels and lectures concerning the new computer technologies and methods of
evaluating such technologies.
(e) . To act as an educational and scientific organization under the rules for a 501-C-3 organization as defined by the Internal
Revenue Service.
(f) To conduct or engage in all lawful activities within or without the United States in furtherance of the foregoing purposes,
or incidental thereto.
Fourth: The association shall have the following classes of membership:
(a)
(b)
M t
Regular Membership — Any individual who, is a user of computer equipment or related services, and who is not primarily
involved in the sale of computer equipment, software, or related services. Each regular member is entitled to one vote on
each matter submitted to a vote of members.
Associate Membership — Any individual who is primarily involved in the sale of computer equipment, software, or
related services. Associate members are ineligible to hold office and shall not be entitled to vote on any matter.
Corporate Associate Membership — Any corporation (or division of any corporation) which is primarily involved in the
sale of computer equipment, software, or related services. Corporate Associate Members have no voting rights and they
and their designees are ineligible to hold office.
Fifth: No part of the income or accumulated funds of the corporation will inure to the benefit of any members or individuals,
and upon dissolution of the association, its then existing net assets shall be distributed among the then existing members
ratably in proportion to their respective contributions or as a court might direct.
Sixth: The ^d$res§ of the,initial registered office and the principal office of the corporation in Colorado is 1690 38th Street,
. Boulder, jt^piip^ df Boulder Colorado 80301 and the name of its initial registered agent at such address is Hillel Segal.
Seventh: The number of directors constituting the initial board of directors of the corporation is eight, and the names and
addresses of the persons who are to serve as the initial directors are:
ADDRESS
Ub.ViiTarl H. Carroll
od'iM* bany G. Leslie
^ c .. Stuart J. Lipoff
Bennett Meyer
Martin J. Neville
Hillel Segal
Leon F. Stevens
David E. Wilson
473 Pontiac, Denver, Colorado 80220
Upjohn Company - 7171 Portage Road, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
Arthur D. Little, Inc. - 20 Acorn Park, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Singer-Kearfott - 150 Totowa Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer - 521 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10017
1690 38th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301
Standard Oil Co. - 200 East Randolph St., Chicago, Illinois 60601
P.S. Ross & Partners - P.O. Box 12, First Canadian Place, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Hillel Segal,
Incorporator
BY-LAWS
OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF COMPUTER USERS, INC.
April 4, 1979
Article I
NAMES AND OFFICES
Section 1. The name of the Association is
f
w
THE ASSOCIATION OF COMPUTER USERS, INC.
Section 2. The headquarters office of the Association shall be located in the City of Boulder. Colorado.
Section 3. The Association may also have offices at such other places both within and without the State of Colorado as
the Board of Directors (also known as the ‘‘Council”) may from time to time determine or the business of the Association
may require.
Article II
PURPOSES
The purposes of the Association shall be those stated in its Certificate of Incorporation, and any amehciments thereto,
as filed with the Secretary of State, State of Colorado. These are: S
(a) To act as non-profit independent computer user association, representing the needs of its members and promoting the
free interchange of ideas about products and services.
To promote the use of computers for improved decision making and to encourage continuous improvement in r the
efficiency and capability of computer products and services, and to encourage an increase in thb range 5f products and
services available to individual computer users. ,
To act as a clearing house and publisher of information about computer products and services.' u)i;
To sponsor public discussion forums, panels and lectures concerning new computer technologies arid methods of
evaluating such technologies. T
To act as an educational and scientific organization under the rules for a 501-C-3 organization as defined by The Internal
Revenue Service. "
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
To conduct or engage in all lawful activities within or without the United States in furtherance of the for'egdihg'purposes,
or incidental thereto. - v . i( -'
Article III
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
;f!d*
Section 1. The Association shall serve as a parent organization for regional groups of members khowfdas Cfiapters, add also
groups based upon functional discipline known as Sections. The Chapters and Sections shall provide a forum for the direct
interchange of ideas and information about computer products and related services. The funbtrdh pi ffie paTedh organfea'tion
shall be to support the Chapters and Sections, to gather information centrally regarding computer products^Wd related’ Set vices
and to disseminate relevant material to all members.
■;a to--. / . . : f >fi ; .nirisv:;^
Section 2. The Board may authorize members to form Chapters based on geographic areas and Sections basdd'tfpon
functional discipline. The Chapters or Sections may determine their own organizational structure provided tjpeir affairs are
conducted in accordance with the policies set forth by the Board of Directors, in the parent organization 5 ^ Certificate of
Incorporation and these By-Laws. Each Chapter and Section may choose their own officers and directors. At the .annual meeting
of the Association each Section shall be eligible to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman who will both serve on tfr£ Board of
Directors of the Association. All officers and directors of the Association including officers of each Chapter and Section, shall be
required to disclose to the Board of Directors of the Association the existence of the receipt of any complimentary goods or
services or of any financial or business relationship with any computer vendor, supplier or related company.
Section 3. Members of each Chapter and Section must also be members of the Association.
Section 4. With the approval of the Board of Directors, dues, membership fees, and special assessments may be levied by
the Association, the Chapters, or the Sections.
Article IV
MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. The Association shall have the
by a Resolution of the Board of Directors.
following classes of membership and any additional classes as may be prescribed
- 2 -
(a) Regular Membership - Any individual who subscribes to the purposes of the Association, as set forth in the Certificate of
Incorporation, who is a user or prospective user of computer equipment or related services, and who is not primarily involved
in the sale of computer equipment, software, or related services. Each regular member shall have all the privileges and voting
rights as specified in these By-Laws.
(b) Associate Membership - Any individual who subscribes to the purposes of the Association as set forth in the Certificate of
Incorporation, and who is primarily involved in the sale of computer equipment, software, or related services. Associate
members may not hold office and have no voting rights. Associate Members may not promote specific products or services
while attending Association functions, unless called upon by regular members to describe a particular product.
(c) Corporate Associate Membership - Any corporation (or division of any corporation) which subscribes to the purposes of
the Association, as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation, which is primarily involved in the sale of computer equipment,
software, or related services. Corporate Associate Members have no voting rights, and their designees may not hold office.
Section 2. Candidates may apply for membership by mailing a completed membership application together with dues or
membership fees as prescribed by the Board of Directors to the office of the Association. The Executive Director may admit
candidates to membership upon determining that the requisite membership qualifications have been met.
Section 3. Each member agrees to be bound by these By-Laws and all amendments thereof upon being admitted to
membership in the Association.
Section 4. Any member of the Association may withdraw from membership by tendering a written resignation to the Board.
Section 5. A member may be suspended, or his membership terminated, for failure to pay dues or assessments, or for a
violation of any of the provisions contained in the Certificate of Incorporation or By-Laws. A suspension or termination shall
require a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors.
Section 6. Any member whose membership in this Association shall have terminated by resignation or other cause shall
forfeit thereby all interest in any and all funds, property, rights and interests belonging to this Association.
Article V
ANNUAL MEETINGS OF MEMBERS
Section 1. All annual meetings of members for the election of Directors and those officers specified in Article XII, may be
held at such place within or without the State of Colorado as shall be stated in the notice of the meeting or in a duly executed
waiver of notice thereof.
Section 2. Annual meetings of members shall be held on the second Thursday in April if not a legal holiday, and if a legal
holiday, then on the next secular day following, at 10:00 a.m., at which shall be elected by a plurality vote, a Board of Directors,
and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.
Section 3. Written or printed notice of the annual meeting stating the place, date and hour of the meeting shall be delivered
not less, than tern nor more than fifty days before the date of the meeting, either personally or by mail, by or at the direction of
the prescient, the secretary, or the officer or person calling the meeting, to each member entitled to vote at such meeting.
Article VI
SPECIAL MEETINGS OF MEMBERS
Section 1, Special, meetings of members may be held at such time and place within or without the State of Colorado as shall
Be stated in notice of ‘the meeting or in a duly executed waiver of notice thereof.
Section 2, Special meetings of the members, for any purpose or purposes, unless otherwise prescribed by statute or by the
Certificate of Incorporation, may be called by the president, the Board of Directors, or by one-third of the members eligible to
vote.
^Section 3. Written or printed notice of a special meeting stating the place, date and hour of the meeting and the purpose or
purposes for which the meeting is called, shall be delivered not less than ten nor more than fifty days before the date o t e
meeting, either personally or by mail, by, or at the direction of, the president, the secretary, or other officer or P er son calling the
meeting, to each member entitled to vote at such meeting. TTie notice should also indicate that it is being issued by, or at the
direction of the person calling the meeting.
Article VII
QUORUM AND VOTING OF MEMBERS
Section 1. One-tenth of all Regular Members represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum at all meetings of
the members for the transaction of business, except as otherwise provided by statute or by the Certificate of Incorporation. If,
however, such quorum shall not be present or represented at any meeting of the members, the members present in person or
represented by proxy shall have power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than announcement at
the meeting, until a quorum shall be present or represented. At such adjourned meeting at which a quorum shall be present or
represented any business may be transacted which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally notified.
- 3 -
Section 2. If a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority of the members entitled to vote at the meeting shall be
the act of the members, unless the vote of a greater or lesser number of members is required by law or the Certificate of
Incorporation.
Section 3. Each member having voting power shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting
of members. A member may vote either in person or by proxy executed in writing by the member or by his duly authorized
attorney-in-fact. Only regular members shall have the right to vote.
Section 4. The Board of Directors in advance of any members’ meeting may appoint one or more inspectors to act at the
meeting or any adjournment thereof. If inspectors are not so appointed, the person presiding at a members’ meeting may. and,
on the request of any member entitled to vote thereat, shall appoint one or more inspectors. In case any person appointed as
inspector fails to appear or act, the vacancy may be filled by the Board in advance of the meeting or at the meeting by the
person presiding thereat.
Section 5. Whenever members are required or permitted to take any action by vote, such action may be taken without a.
meeting or written consent, setting forth the action so taken, signed by all of the members entitled to vote thereon.
Article VIII
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(THE COUNCIL)
Section 1. The number of Directors shall be not less than five and shall not exceed the maximum number as fixegj from t$ne
to time by Resolution of the Board. In the absence of such a Resolution, the maximum number shall be fourteen. Directors sHall.. ;
be at least twenty-one years of age and need not be residents of the State of Colorado. The Directors shall include, the President,
Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Director of the Association, and the Chairman, Vice Chairman and
Executive Director of each of its Sections. The Directors shall be elected at the annual meeting of the members, exc.ept^as
hereinafter provided, and each Director elected shall serve until the next succeeding annual meeting and until his successor ^ha.|!,
have been elected and installed.
Section 2. Any or all of the Directors may be removed, with or without cause, at any time by the vote of the regular
members at a special meeting called for that purpose.
.: f ’i
Section 3. Newly created Directorships resulting from an increase in the number of Sections authorized by the Bqa.rc), and
all other vacancies among Directors, shall be filled by the current Board. A Director appointed by the Board to fjfbg newly
created position shall serve until the next succeeding annual meeting of members and until his successor shall have been elected
and installed. r:<,;soc?-
Section 4. The business affairs and the activities of the Association shall be managed by its Board of Directors whicli^may
exercise all such powers of the Association and do all such lawful acts and things as are not by statute or by the Certificate of
Incorporation or by these By-Laws directed or required to be exercised or done by the members. . c ..
Section 5. The Directors may keep the books of the Association, except such as are required by law to Be kept vvitftin the;
State, outside the State of Colorado, at such place or places as they may from time to time determine.
Section 6. The Board of Directors, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors then in office, shall have authority to
establish reasonable compensation, if any, of all Directors for services to the Association as Directors, officers or otherwise.
Section 7. The Board of Directors may also be known as the “Council” of the Association and use of tBe wdrd Council for
any corporate purpose shall be equivalent to use of the words “Board of Directors.
Article IX .*s - ; 'To '#
MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (COUNCIL) " V"
Section 1. Meetings of the Board of Directors, regular or special, may be held either within or without the State of Colorado.
Section 2. The first meeting of each newly elected Board of Directors shall be held immediately after the annual members
meeting electing such Board and no notice of such meeting shall be necessary to the newly elected Directors in order legally to
constitute the meeting, provided a quorum shall be present, or it may convene at such place and time as shall be fixed by t e
consent in writing of all the Directors.
Section 3. Regular meeting of the Board of Directors may be held upon such notice, or without notice, and at such time and
at such place as shall from time to time be determined by the Board.
Section 4. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the president on at least five business days notice to
each Director, either personally or by mail or by telegram; special meetings shall be called by the president or secretary in like
manner and on like notice on the written request of one-half of the Directors currently serving on the Board of Directors.
Section 5. Notice of a meeting need not be given to any Director who submits a signed waiver of notice whether before or
after the meeting, or who attends the meeting without protesting, prior thereto or at its commencement, the lack of notice.
- 4 -
Neither the business to be transacted at, nor the purpose of, any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors need be
specified in the notice or waiver of notice of such meeting.
Section 6. One-third of the Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business unless a greater or lesser
number is required by law. The vote of a majority of the Directors present at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be
the act of the Board of Directors, unless the vote of a greater number is required by law or by the Certificate of Incorporation. If
a quorum shall not be present at any meeting of Directors, a majority of the Directors present may adjourn the meeting from
time to time, without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum shall be present.
Article X
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Section 1. The Board of Directors, by Resolution adopted by a majority of the entire Board, may designate an executive
committee and other standing committees, and each of which, to the extent provided in the Resolution, shall have all the
authority of the Board, except as otherwise required by law. Vacancies in the membership of the committee shall be filled by the
Board of Directors at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. The executive committee shall keep regular minutes
of its proceedings and report the same to the Board when required.
Article XI
NOTICES
Section 1. Whenever, under the provisions of the statutes or of the Certificate of Incorporation or of these By-Laws, notice
is required to be given to any Director or member, it shall not be contrued to require personal notice, but such notice may also
' be given in writing, by mail, addressed to such Director or member, at his address as it appears on the records of the
Association, with postage thereon prepaid, and such notice shall be deemed to be given at the time when the same shall be
deposited in the United States mail. Notice to Directors may also be given by telegram.
Section 2. Whenever any notice of a meeting is required to be given under the provisions of the statutes or under the
provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation or these By-Laws, a waiver thereof in writing signed by the person or persons
entitled to such notice, whether before or after the time stated therein, shall be deemed equivalent to the giving of such notice.
Article XII
OFFICERS
Section 1. The officers of the Association to be elected by the members shall consist of a President, a Vice President, a
Secretary and a Treasurer. The officer to be appointed by the Board of Directors shall be the Executive Director. Officers shall
serve for a term of one (1) year and may be re-elected for additional terms of one (1) year each except for the Executive Director
who may be appointed for a term of more than one year as determined by the Board of Directors.
Section 2. The Association’s members at each annual meeting of members shall choose a President, Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer from among the members, and the members of each Section shall elect a Chairman and Vice
Chairman from among the members of each respective Section. The Board of Directors shall appoint the Executive Director,
who may or may not be a member, who also serves as Executive Director of each Section. The offices of President and
Secretary may not be held by the same person.
Section 3. The Board of Directors may appoint such other officers and agents as it shall deem necessary who shall hold their
offices for such terms and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as shall be determined from time to time by the
Board of directors, o bi¬
section 4. Remuneration of any officers, employees or agents of the Association shall be fixed by the Board of Directors.
Section 5. The officers of the Association shall hold office until their successors are chosen and installed. Any officer may be
^ffcemoved at any time by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members. Any vacancy occurring in any office of the Association
shall be filled by the Board of Directors and the newly appointed officer shall serve until the next annual meeting of the
members.
PRESIDENT
Section 6. The President shall be the chief spokesman for the Association, shall preside at all general meetings of the
members and the Board of Directors, and shall have other duties as prescribed by the Board.
VICE PRESIDENT
Section 7. The Vice President shall, in the absence or disability of the President, perform the duties and exercise the powers
of the President and shall perform such other duties and have such other powers as the Board of Directors may from time to
‘ time prescribe.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Section 8. The Executive Director shall be the executive officer of the Association and each of its Sections, shall have
- 5 -
general and active management of the activities and the business of the Association and shall see that all orders and resolutions
of the Board of Directors are carried into effect.
The Executive Director shall execute bonds, mortgages and other contracts requiring the seal of the Association, except
where required or permitted by law to be otherwise signed and executed and except where the signing and execution thereof
shall be expressly delegated by the Board of Directors to some other officer or agent of the Association.
SECRETARY
Section 9. The Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Board of Directors and all general meetings of the members and
shall record all the proceedings in a book to be kept for that purpose. He shall give, or cause to be given, notice of all meetings
of the members and special meetings of the Board of Directors, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the
Board of Directors, under whose supervision he shall be. He shall have custody of the corporate seal of the Association and he
shall have authority to affix the same to any instrument requiring it and, when so affixed, it may be attested by his signature: The
Board of Directors may give general authority to any other officer to affix the seal of the Association and to attest the affixing;by
his signature.
TREASURER
Section 10. The Treasurer shall have the custody of the Association’s funds and securities and shall keep full and accurate
accounts of receipts and disbursements in books belonging to the Association and shall deposit all monies and other valuable
effects in the name and to the credit of the Association in such depositories as may be designated by,the Board of .Directors.
Section 11. He shall disburse the funds of the Association as may be ordered by the Board of Directors; taking proper
vouchers for such disbursements, and shall render to the Board of Directors at its regular meetings, or when.the Board'of
Directors or the President so require, an account of all his transactions as Treasurer and of the- financial condition of the
Association.
Section 12. If required by the Board of Directors, he shall give the Association a bond in such sum and with such surety or
sureties as shall be satisfactory to the Board of Directors for the faithful performance of the duties of his office and for the
restoration to the Association, in case of his death, resignation, retirement or removal from office, of all books, papers,
vouchers, money and other property of whatever kind in his possession or under his control belonging to the Association.
SECTION CHAIRMEN
Section 13. The persons elected as Section Chairmen shall be the chief spokesmen for each respective Section of the
Association, and shall serve on the Board of Directors of the Association representing the Sections which elected them.
SECTION VICE CHAIRMEN
Section 14. The persons elected as Section Vice Chairmen shall, in the absence or disability of the respective. Section
Chairmen, be the chief spokesmen for each respective Section of the Association. The Section Vice Chairmen also, serve, onThe
Board of Directors of the Association representing the Sections which elected them. >
' TvX ' • '
Article XIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS 1 ; o?- 8
.. : ' VU
Section 1. All checks or demands for money and notes of the Association shall be signed by such officer or pCficers-or s^ch
other person or persons as the Board of Directors may from time to time designate.
Section 2. The fiscal year of the Association shall be fixed by Resolution of the Board of Directors.
noilosS
Section 3. The Association seal shall have inscribed thereon the name of the Association, the year of its organization andAe
words “Corporate Seal, Colorado”. The seal may be used by causing it or a facsimile therof to be impressed or affixed or in any
manner reproduced.
Section 4. The Association will not adopt or publicize any specific or generalized endorsement or non-endorsement of any
computer vendor, supplier, product or service. No member is authorized to represent that the Association is recommending or
suggesting the use of any particular computer vendor, supplier, product or service. Notwithstanding the above, the Association
shall be authorized to disseminate information and reports concerning such vendors, products and services.
Article XIV
AMENDMENTS
Section 1. These By-Laws may be amended or repealed, or new By-Laws may be adopted, at (1) any regular or special
meeting of members at which a quorum is present or represented by the vote of the members entitled to vote in the election of
any Director, or at (2) a meeting of the Board of Directors by vote of a majority of such Board at which a quorum is present or
represented, provided notice of the proposed alteration, amendment, or repeal, be contained in the notice of such Board
meeting.
- 6 -
Association of Computer Users
4800 Riverbend Road • Post Office Box 9003 • Boulder 4 Colorado 80301 • 303/443-3600
ACU POSITION PAPER
Testimony Before
The U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Small Business
Sub-Committee on Antitrust and Trade Restraint
Affecting Small Business
May 7, 1981
by
Hillel Segal, President
The Association of Computer Users, Inc.
An independent non-profit corporation
Formerly The Association of Time-Sharing Users and The Association of Small Computer Users
ACU Position Paper
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear here today.
I am testifying today to express the voice of an impartial association of users of computers and
related services—who are the consumers of the computer industry—to call for open entry into the
data processing industry. We ask this in order to allow free competition to provide the widest
possible range of choice of consumers of the data processing segment of American industry. It is
our view—and I am speaking officially, with full knowledge and consent of our elected board of
directors—that the end user can best be served by allowing wide-open competition, provided of
course that fair and ethical business practices are always used.
Background
Before I go on, allow me to briefly describe the Association of Computer Users and our activities,
so that our position can be better understood.
The Association of Computer Users includes users of all kinds of computer and word processing
systems. Our membership, over 3,000 individuals, includes people who use computers in industry,
government, science, education and in many other areas as well. Represented are nearly all states of
the nation and several foreign countries. A significant percentage of our members are small business
users. In addition, we have a separate, non-voting membership category for manufacturers and
suppliers of computer equipment and services.
As the Association’s elected president, I serve as chief executive officer and editor of the ACU’s
numerous publications. We publish a monthly Bulletin of industry news, a bimonthly magazine-style
journal, called Interactive Computing, and seven special newsletters for computer users.
Benchmark Reports
ACU is perhaps best known for its Benchmark Reports, which compare the performance of
similarly-priced and configured computers. So far, we have compared nearly three-dozen computer
systems in three different price ranges.
The benchmark tests, which can be likened to road tests commonly performed on sports cars and
reported on in consumer magazines, are an attempt to find a standard measure for the speed of
computers in the performance of various common tasks. Our tests provide a real-world testing
ground which allows systems to compete on terms as equal as possible. The performance times, in
minutes and seconds, are far more revealing than any other form of comparison.
Portions of the results of these benchmark tests are reported on in regular columns appearing in the
trade press. Computerworld and Interface Age are two publications which carry these results.
We at the Association are in daily contact with individuals who use computer equipment through
our telephone reference service. We receive numerous inquiries and reports of problems, and we do
our best to steer people to the right sources of information. In the process, we discover much
about the concerns of day-to-day computer and office equipment users.
The Industry is Healthy
As you can see, our activities place us in a unique position to monitor the needs of consumers, and
this is reflected in our position, which I’ll now explain.
While there are many difficulties facing the user of computers and services, including the question of
vendor selection, software acquisition, service, training, and continuing support from the vendor, we
see from our perspective as users, an industry that is currently healthy. American is still in a
leadership position in the design, manufacture and programming of computers and in their utilization
by business, education and government. The American computer industry is enjoying a prosperity
which few can argue with. New firms are still able to get started, while older companies find they
must not stand still in order to maintain their previous market share. This is entirely as it should
be.
However, it is evident from the positions of some suppliers, and many that we’ve heard from
today—that they feel the door should be shut once they are inside. These parties seek to lock-out
the competition through regulatory shenanigans. They seek to restrict the trade of others in order to
benefit their existing self-interest.
We cannot condone such tactics. Enterprise should not be restricted to only a portion of those
who would compete. The doors should be opened to all.
Our Position
In short, we feel that the entry of new firms into the marketplace is to be welcomed as a normal
process within our free society. Our modern time-sharing services industry, for example, has evolved
over the years through the entry into the field of many firms which originally had no intention of
selling computer time or software. But as large corporations developed substantial in-house computing
capability, they began to consider selling their excess resources to others, and lowering the cost to
themselves of major programming projects by sharing the end products with those having similar
needs. In doing so, they crossed over into the role of time-sharing services supplier, and joined the
industry as a vendor instead of a customer. Some airlines and oil companies are perfect examples of
ACU Position Paper
this. While this is certainly not the only way in which many computer service firms have started, it
is a common path, and should not be denied to newcomers now.
If the entry by new firms comes at the expense of some established suppliers, this is a fact of life
which is certainly important to them but is of less concern to the consumer. And this is the major
point Pm making today: the consumer’s interest is best served through the interplay of
unrestricted business. If the new introduction is a better product or service, its success will be
deserved; if not, it may at least serve to stimulate improvements from other competitors.
Free Choice Good For All
The end result is that the entry of new firms means greater choice for the consumer, not less. But
if we lock out companies for one reason or another, the restrictions will stifle the business
atmosphere, weaken a fine industry, and leave us more vulnerable to foreign competition.
Regarding some of the other testimony you’ve heard today, we can understand the position of some
suppliers of computer services who may be exposed to new competition from companies with
significant financial clout. Our understanding of their argument is they fear that financial institutions,
such as banks, have a “captive” customer base and in an effort to secure customers will use their
financial resources in an anticompetitivm manner—either by predatory pricing tactics, financial
leverage, or other unfair methods of competition.
If this should occur, there are laws already in place and being enforced—the federal and state
antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act. In fact, we understand that the FTC is
engaged in several present investigations of alleged unfair methods of competition by existing
computer vendors.
On balance, we feel that the existing legal structure provides a remedy for the kind of conduct
feared by some present suppliers. And more important, we think that the competition shouldbe
given a chance. If serious inequities and harm to the industry should result from permitting financial
institutions and companies like AT&T from entering the business, Congress has the means at its
disposal to review the problem and to determine if legislative relief should be enacted.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that the interests of millions of consumers take
precedence over the self-serving strategy of an industry in-group. Our computer suppliers are
a diverse group ranging widely in size, scope, and area of specialty, but there is still plenty of room
for new ideas, new applications, and new resources. In a fast-growing and rapidly-evolving industry,
let’s not stand in the way of change—let’s encourage it through fair and open competition.
Thank you.
Association of Computer Users
4800 Riverbend Road • Post Office Box 9003 • Boulder A Colorado 80301 • 303/443-3600
ACU POSITION PAPER
#2
Testimony Before
The U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Sub-Committee on Telecommunications,
Consumer Protection and Finance
February 24, 1982
by
Hillel Segal, President
The Association of Computer Users, Inc.
An independent non-profit corporation
Formerly The Association of Time-Sharing Users and The Association of Small Computer Users
ACU Position Paper
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Our primary topic today is the adequacy of the revised consent decree agreed upon by the Justice
Department and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. This landmark decision, involving
the divestiture of the 22 regional operating companies, is intended to bring about a result which we
in the Association of Computer Users—and other consumer-oriented groups—have long advocated.
That result is an increase in healthy competition within the communications industry.
Before I go on, allow me to briefly describe the Association of Computer Users, so that our
position can be better understood.
The Association of Computer Users includes users of all kinds of computer and word processing
systems. Our membership, approximately 3,000 individuals, includes people who use computers in
industry, government, science, education and in many other areas as well. Represented are nearly all
states of the nation and several foreign countries. A significant percentage of our members are small
business users. In addition, we have a separate, non-voting membership category for manufacturers
and suppliers of computer equipment and services.
As the Association’s elected president, I serve as chief executive officer and editor of the ACU’s
numerous publications. Our activities place us in a unique position to monitor the needs of
consumers.
A New Era Of Competition
In our opinion, the removal of restrictions on AT&T provided for by the new agreement lays the
groundwork for a new era of strong competition—not only in the communications field, but in the
computer industry as well. It is an event which we welcome whole heartedly. In our view, the
more players in the game the better. And AT&T, with its tremendous financial and scientific
resources, is in a unique position to eventually offer a strong challenge to IBM for leadership in the
computer industry. As the computer industry undergoes a period of rapid growth and change, we
can think of few better stimuli than the entrance of AT&T. We therefore congratulate the two
parties to the agreement for their work toward an excellent compromise that will allow AT&T to
enter new markets.
At the same time, however, we recognize the need for close scrutiny of all aspects and ramifications
of so major a change. There are still several considerations needing attention and possible legislative
action. This subcommittee’s action in reviewing the modified consent decree is wholly appropriate,
and we applaud its efforts.
Local Access Charges
To a large extent, this agreement may succeed or fail based on the adequacy of one arrangement
that is yet to be completely worked out. This is the question of the local access charges which the
AT&T Long-Lines Division and other interstate carriers, such as MCI, will be required to pay to
regional telephone operating companies. The size of these payments for the local portions of long-
distance telephone calls will have a significant effect on the financial health of both AT&T and the
divested regional operating companies. The payments will also directly affect consumers by
determining the relative costs of local and long-distance service.
We feel that if the access charges are set too low, the result will be unacceptable increases in the
cost of local service. On the other hand, if the rates are set too high, it is possible that the Long-
Lines Division will be unable to generate the profits that would enable AT&T to enter new markets
and compete effectively in its new role within unregulated areas such as the computer industry.
We, therefore, urge that the issue of access fees be addressed in depth by all parties. We must
not allow the competitive benefits of the revised consent decree to be nullified by an
inadequate resolution of this important financial issue. At the same time, we must ensure that
the interests of telephone users throughout the country are fairly considered in any ultimate
settlement.
In the long run, we envision tremendous growth in the usage of telephone services by small
computers, and this brings us to our second subject of concern. We are now at the dawn of a
new age—the small computer age—and the potential uses of computers in the home, industry,
government and education are just beginning to be realized. Within the next decade, we will see an
enourmous impact on our economy, our style of work and living—even our culture as a whole. This
will come about because of the ability of small computers to communicate with each other and
exchange information over the telephone lines. Electronic messages, access of centralized data banks,
banking, shopping, and working from the home—these are just some of the possibilities. But they all
depend on the availability of dependable low-cost communications facilities.
The Importance Of Low Telephone Rates
At this early stage in the growth of computer communications, a drastic hike in telephone fees
could have an extremely negative impact on the growth of the entire small computer
industry. In particular, the imposition of per-call charges for local service—so-called message units—
would greatly increase the cost of using small computers for these new applications. Faced with
drastically higher costs, these new services would have much greater difficulty becoming established.
Just as the telephone industry blossomed in its early years through low-cost, flat-rate service, so
should the early growth of computer communications be given a positive environment in its formative
period. Once the industry is mature, a more flexible rate structure which takes into consideration
the volume of usage can be put into place. In the initial stages, however, everyone industry and
public alike—stands to benefit from continued low-rate access for small computers.
In conclusion, I wish to thank members of the subcommittee for their interest in these important
topics. AT&T’s entrance into new, unregulated markets is a tremendous step forward for both
industry and consumers alike. At the same time, the establishment of fair rates for all classes of
telephone service is of paramount importance, and we urge that full consideration be given to the
points we have addressed.
m
-Interactive
Computi ng
Interactive Computing
Page 2
-Interactive
Computing
ACU Officers
Publisher
ACU Research & Education Division, Inc.
President Secretary
Hillel Segal Martin Neville
Editor
Vice President Treasurer
Hillel Segal
David Wilson Larry Leslie
Associate Editor
Jesse Berst
Section Chairmen
Bulletin Editor
Small Computer
Stuart Lipoff, Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Vic Schoenberg
Midi Computer
Contributors
Ankarath Unni, Sun Production Company
Jesse Berst
Large Computer
Robert Conrow
Howard Tureff, Gould, Inc.
Larry Dietz
Distributed Processing
Phillip Good
Aram Bedrosian, Trans World Airlines
Victor Krasan
Word Processing
Vic Schoenberg
Tom Kurihara, U.S. Dept, of Transportation
Time-Sharing
Copy Editor Typesetter
Larry Leslie, Upjohn Company
Holly Arrow Paula Erez
Home & Hobbyist
Cover Artist Cartoonist
David Wilson, Touche Ross & Partners
Robert Tinney Tom Niemann
Printer
ACU Staff
Empire Press
Membership Secretary Office Assistant
Peggy Liesener Mary Ann McVay
Executive Secretary Office Manager
Copyright ®1982, ACU Research and Education
Terry Onofrey Harold Dunlap, Jr.
Division, Inc., an affiliate of The Association of
Computer Users, a non-profit corporation, P.O. Box
Receptionist Executive Director
9003, Boulder, CO 80301. Telephone (303) 443-3600.
Kathy Taylor Hillel Segal
Second class postage paid at Boulder, CO 80301.
January 1982
Page 3
Interest Areas
ACU Bulletin
A capsule summary of the key items discussed in
dozens of trade and technical publications , plus
news about ACU.
1982
Members
New & Renewing Members
A special “thank-you” to all members for
applications received during October 1981
Small Computer
Midi Computer
Large Computer
Time-Sharing
Word Processing
Distributed Processing
Why Does Everyone Hate DP?
How did DP get to be the department everyone
loves to hate? And what can be done to improve
the situation?
Murphy’s Laws of Computerdom
If you work with computers, you may feel at times
there is no end to the possible problems. You’re
right, and here’s a look at why.
'process ^ 1
Putting Computers To Work
Case histories of three ACU members, who share
their experiences with small computers for the
benefit of the rest of us.
Small Computer
Home & Hobbyist
IBM’s VM/CMS
IBM’s user friendly operating system offers
advantages for programmers and users alike, but
it does have a few limitations.
Midi Computer
Large Computer
Corporate Association Members
Local Contacts.
Announcing
Model«
|ssu« :
RADIO
Three
DELUXE BINDERS
provided at no
extra charge
Each report
contains 24 pages
of test results,
user comments
and system
information,
lili"®:::
ACU’s
bench: :
REPOR
LIBRARY.
At a new low
low price
for ACU members
24 Single User Systems
For the first time, ACU is now offering its
complete library of 36 BENCHMARK REPORTS
at the special low price of only $175 for
members only.
Originally, the entire set sold for $750—each
charter subscriber received the individual
reports as they were prepared during ’80 and
’81—and they were the most up-to-date
competitive analyses of small systems available
in the data processing industry.
While all the information is not as “hot” as it
was when it was first released, it is still
current, timely and exceptionally valuable
for those considering alternative small computer
systems. Now priced at only $175, it is a real
bargain for ACU members.
Each report presents impartial test results
in a clear, concise format
Each 24-page system report contains, in non¬
technical terms: (1) the results of four
benchmark programs, (2) an ease-of-use test,
(3) a user survey, and (4) a complete system
summary from a user point of view. All ACU
members are urged to take advantage of this
special offer.
Test results on 24 of the most popular small systems
under $15,000. Each system is tested with floppy disk
storage, keyboard, CRT screen and printer.
• Texas Instruments 111
• North Star Horizon
• Vector Graphic System B
• Digital Microsystems DSC-2
• Radio Shack TRS-80 Model II
• Ohio Scientific C3-A & C3-B
• Alpha Micro AM-1011
• Pertec PCC 2000
• Cromemco Sys. Two & Z-2H
• Digital's DECstation 78
• Apple II Plus
• Data General CS-10
• IBM 5120
• SD Systems SD-200
• Datapoint 1550
• NEC 205
• Billings BC12BF2M
• Dynabyte 5300
• Wang 2200 SVP
• Commodore CBM-8032
• Smoke Signal Chieftain
• Zenith Z-90
• Vector Graphic 3005
• Altos ACS-8000-15 & 6
12 Multi-User Systems
Test results of the 12 most popular multi-user systems.
These benchmark tests not only demonstrate single job
stream performance, but also the effect on multi-user
response time when up to eight terminals are run
simultaneously.
• DEC Datasystem 355
• IBM Series/1
• Hewlett Packard HP250
• Wang 2200 MVP
• Texas Instruments DS990/4
• Alpha Micro AM-100T
• Data General CS-50
• Microdata 4000
• Burroughs B-91
• Ultimate A1
• Datapoint ARC 6600
• Altos 8000-10
TO ORDER YOUR LIBRARY: See separate order form enclosed with this issue.
(Or membership application attached for new members.)
'
Ml
wmm
ACU Update
ACU Seminars Being Planned— In looking at ways to increase our services to members and
help new users, we’re thinking about holding a series of ACU seminars in the coming year. We
might start out by sponsoring a one-day seminar in different locations around the country—
perhaps in 10 or 12 cities during the year. In this way, although some travel may be required, it
would minimize the need for most members to travel great distances to attend.
One idea is to focus on the topic “How To Select & Manage A Small Computer System” during a
day-long seminar session, and then finish with a dinner and presentation on another topic for all
ACU members in the area. Since we’re still in the planning stage, we’d like to solicit your ideas on
seminar topics and subjects for discussion. Of course, we’ll also need your help when the seminars
become a reality. If you are interested in speaking or participating on a panel, or if you can assist
with organization on the local level—such as coordinating hotel reservations, newspaper publicity,
local advertising, or in any other way—we need to hear from you.
A program of regular seminars and meetings would be a great way to bring our association
membership together to trade ideas and meet fellow computer users. Please use the enclosed
questionnaire to let us know what you think, and if you’d like to be part of the program.
Interactive Computing —We’re monthly now, beginning with this, the January issue. We think
you’ll find a broader cross-section of news and comments here than in our previous issues, with
topics applying to all seven sections now discussed in these pages. We’d like to know if Interactive
Computing suits your needs as well as it could. The questionnaires from the last issue are just
beginning to come in, and we appreciate your response.
-
ACU’s New Benchmark Library— As you can see from our ad to the left, ACU is now offering
its entire library of 36 Benchmark Reports to members at a vastly reduced price.
As you may remember, members were polled several months ago for their opinion on including
the Benchmark Reports with membership at a reduced cost, rather than separately at a higher cost
as in the past. It was argued that if all members received the reports, the price could be drastically
reduced. In analyzing the results of the survey, we found that a majority favored including the
reports with membership, but a significant minority did not feel it was proper to force them to
purchase the reports. ,
As a result, our Board of Directors decided to compromise—offering members the option ot
receiving the reports at the lower price. The full set, with 24-page evaluations on each of 36 different
systems, is now available for members only—an exceptional value for such a low price.
Private Sale For ACU Members— In addition to the Benchmark Library, a limited quantity of
ACU’s 1981 Editions of the Remote Computing Directory and Computer Terminal Directory
are now being offered at big savings for members. See the enclosed flier for details. hs
January 1982 Q Association of Computer Users
Page 6
Industry Update
Massive Reorganization at IBM
Trade Press Biased Against IBM?
Fear of Automation May Hinder
Use of Office Technology
In a move designed to cut administrative overhead and simplify life for its
customers, IBM has begun a sweeping reorganization of all manufacturing and
marketing operations in the U.S. Just formed are three new groups, one for
marketing and field service for all of IBM’s products and the other two for
manufacturing and development tasks of large and small information systems.
The marketing shuffle is expected to result in two divisions: one to market the
full range of products to Fortune 1000 firms, and another to do the same for
smaller customers. Customers will applaud an end to the confusing situation
that previously resulted when two or three salesmen from different divisions at
IBM offered separate solutions to the same problem.
In detail, here’s IBM’s New Corporate Structure:
Information Systems Group—All seven present marketing and service
divisions: data processing, federal systems, general systems, office products,
information records, customer service and field engineering. Marketing forces to
be divided next year into groups for large and small customers.
Information Systems and Technology Group—Manufacturing and
development of large information processing systems, semiconductor devices,
data systems, general products and general technology.
Information Systems and Communications Group—Manufacturing and
development of smaller information processing systems, system products and
communications products.
When Computerworld magazine polled data processing managers recently, it
found many believe coverage in trade publications slanted against IBM. One
respondent said the press was eager to find fault with IBM, yet didn’t cover the
firm’s products thoroughly enough. In response, we at ACU think there should
be no sacred cows; if they “flub up,” let ’em have it! We try not to be biased
against any vendor, just for end users.
Will office workers adjust to the new equipment that’s becoming available? It’s
not a trivial question, as the drive to improve productivity in the office runs into
the same human factors that have accompanied automation in other areas of
the economy. Two experts recently warned that skepticism and outright
hostility can result if new systems are introduced quickly or carelessly.
J. Thomas Horrigan, an officer at Maryland National Bank, says workers
who lack familiarity with DP equipment may fear the unknown and cling to
“doing it the old way.” Managers may reject the keyboard, seeing it as a clerical
function, while secretaries may worry about being reclassified as a WP operator
if they use a system too much.
Citing much the same set of problems, consultant Ursula Conner of
Ubi Enterprises (Greenwich, Conn.) suggested a gradual training program
over a period of several months, with hands-on experience at an early stage
and day-to-day technical assistance throughout. But she noted that just training
isn’t enough to ensure that productivity gains made initially will be long-lasting.
Changes in job roles may be necessary, she says, and managers should “look at
new ways to restructure jobs so that every person has both machine and
human interaction during the workday.”
ACU s Bulletin is researched and edited especially for computer users—in order to provide a capsule summary of the key items discussed each
month in dozens of technical and trade publications covering the computer industry.
Page 7
W New Product News
Hewlett-Packard
1820 Embarcadero
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(415) 857-1501
Digital Equipment Corporation
Maynard, MA 01754
(617) 467-5111
Personal Software
1330 Bordeaux Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
(408) 745-7841
Hewlett-Packard recently revealed its new strategy for the ’80s with its
introduction of new word processing software and hardware, and two new
models in the HP 3000 family. The firm’s word processing system is the
HP WORD/3000, which uses special word processing terminals, priced at
$4,950 each, connected to the central computer. The software costs $5,000,
with a monthly maintenance fee of $95. HP says the package is designed for
use by secretaries in typing letters, memos and reports. The firm also says
that it now offers a wide range of computing services for office functions—
calling the concept the “interactive office.”
In introducing its new personal computer, Digital Equipment Corporation
has taken a rather interesting approach. By adding a processor/memory
board internally and floppy disk drive externally, the firm transforms its
existing VT100 display terminals into personal computers with the CP/M
operating system. (Software is available from outside sources such as
Lifeboat Associates and Digital Research.) The enhanced product is called
the VT18X, and costs $2,400 above the VTlOO’s basic price tag.
In addition, DEC announced a new electronic mail system for its computers
and word processors, giving the name “Office Plus” to its total approach to
putting computers in the office. The electronic mail system, called DECmail,
uses the firm’s VAX-11 family of computers and any DEC terminal. DEC
now offers a variety of office products, including word processing packages
for its computers, graphics, typesetting, and four communications options.
Personal Software has wasted no time in following up the successful
VisiCalc program with other products for the Apple computer. The
company’s latest effort is VisiFile, a set of utilities for file management
handling mailing lists, inventories, and other groups of records. It features
easy-to-use menus, search and sort functions, and automatic arithmetic such
as column addition. VisiFile joins a set of programs that includes VisiPlot
(graphics) and VisiTrend/VisiPlot (statistical analysis with graphics), and the
various products can be used together on the same data. With the
VisiTerm package, information can be transmitted over the phone to
another computer. VisiFile costs $250 and requires an Apple system with
disk drive and 48K of memory.
Page 8
ACU’s New and Renewing Members
Applications Received “Thank-you!” to all renewing members for your continuing support, and
in October 1981 welcome aboard to new members just signing up. The list below shows
renewals and new members along with the company they’re affiliated with, if
one was indicated. The asterisks after the names of renewing members
represent the number of years they have been a member.
Herbert I. Abelson *
Response Analysis
P.S. Abrams *
Petroleum Data Corporation
Charles Agin ***
General Reinsurance Corp.
J. Alf *
Clow Corp. Water Mgt. Div.
Stanley Allison ***
Horace Mann Insurance Co.
Bob Alsaker **
Kroy Inc.
Fred Alyea **
St. Anthony’s Hospital
David L. Anderson ***
GM Enterprises, Inc.
Luis E. Aparicio
Systronics Business Machines
J. W. Banko ****
Harris Corporation
Lloyd Barnard, Jr. *
Newcomb & Boyd
Char Beckler *
Centurion Family Restaurant
Thomas J. Becvar **
Signode Corp.
Cynthia M. Bello my **
Alaska Interstate Co.
Douglas C. Belton *
Filter Queen, Inc.
Murray P. Benenson ***
Philip Vogel & Co.
E. J. Berman ***
Berman, Mills & Co.
Richard G. Beyer **
National Floor Products, Inc.
Anil K. Bhala ***
Schreiber Foods, Inc.
Irving B. Bied *******
Shadur La Vine & Assoc.
Bion B. Bierer ****
Bristol - Myers Co.
Eleanor L. Bissinger ***
Lebenthal & Company
William J. Blatt ***
Humana, Inc.
Thomas H. Bly **
County of Butler
Hester A. Bouwkamp ***
Gallmeyer & Livingston Co.
Richard M. Bramblett ***
Medical College of Georgia
James M. Brandi **
Life Care Services Corp.
Robert J. Brasier ***
Tipp Machine & Tool, Inc.
Stanley Braunstein *
MBS/Multimore
Seymour Brooks *
Citishare-Citibank N.A.
Donald B. Brout ****
Standard Brands, Inc.
Karla H. Brown **
Monsanto Textiles Co.
Jeff Buchanan **
Battelle-Northwest
Regina Buechley
Pharmadynamics Research, Inc.
Richard Bueschel *******
TSC
Dwight M. Buffum ******
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Royden O. Butterfield ***
Northern Regional Res. Center
Alfred R. Cackowski *******
Chicopee
James Caffey ***
Rady & Associates, Inc.
Stephanie M. Campbell *
Real Estate Analysts of Newport
Raul Zuno Cardenas **
Ladrillera Monterrey, S.A.
Linda Carney
Honeywell
E. H. Casper *****
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
R. Charnock *
N.P.R.I.
Jean Chastain **
Economics Laboratory, Inc.
E. R. Clare ***
State National Bank
D. E. Clark *
Dobbs Houses, Inc.
Gerald D. Cohen ******
Information Builders, Inc.
Ira Cohen ***
Imported Publications, Inc.
William A. Collins **
American Olean Tile Co.
Bill Componovo **
American Life Insurance Co.
William W. Compton ****
Mercer University
Stuart Corsover ***
James Cruce **
Innovative Computer Sys., Inc.
Edwin W. Crewson **
Missionary Church, Inc.
Dale Curry **
SKF Industries, Inc.
R. F. Danaher ***
Gast Mfg. Corp.
Doug Dashner **
Dekalb County Farm Bureau
Paul L. De Coster **
Valley Bancorporation
Paul R. De Maagd *
Elzinga & Volkers, Inc.
Construction Managers
Alan A. Dettmering *
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Paul E. Dillon ***
Boulevard Publications, Inc.
Linden Doerr ***
Shamrock Chemicals Corp.
Eddie Dolezal **
Wicks TV’ Sticks, Inc.
Chris Duke *
Tandem Computers, Inc.
George N. Dumas ***
Penfield & Smith
Court Dwyer *
Honeywell
Larry W. Ebert ***
Fox Quality Baking Co., Inc.
C. Robert Eckman ***
Misco Industries, Inc.
Irving Elster
B. R. Empey
Thurber Consultants Ltd.
Ira Epstein **
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Richard G. Estock *
EDP Consultants, Inc.
Bill G. Fahey ***
Small Business Computers, Inc.
James E. Fenske ***
Miles Homes/Div. of Insilco
Ralph Fenton
Justis Supply Co., Inc.
A. Finelli
Universite De Paris VI
Mitchell A. Fink ***
Mitchell A. Fink Associates
John C. Foland *
Foland Technical Services
Joseph Fomenko
Radionics Inc.
Allan Forsythe **
The Carroll School
John J. Fris **
Fris Office Outfitters
C. D. Garrett ***
Magnolia Municipal Water Sys.
George Garrido **
Lancaster Machine Knife Works
Norma J. Gast *
Ethicon, Inc.
Donald Gazdik
Citishare-Citibank N.A.
Daniel R. Gebhart *
Financial Systems Design
Robert B. Geis *******
Geis & Company
L. Germay **
Kalamazoo Spring Company
James R. Gertz **
Bridgeport Metal Goods Mfg. Co.
Fred Goldsmith ***
F.A.B., Inc.
Philip H. Granitz ***
Harley Ellington Pierce
Yee Associates
Gerald Greenberg ***
Alvin Grossman **
San Mateo County Supt. Schools
Michael G. Grottola **
Business Technologies
Kerry R. Gubics
Cohen & Co.
Eugene G. Gwyer **
Donald I. Halter, Jr. ***
County Pride Foods Ltd.
Martin Hamerman ***
Beers, Hamerman & Co.
John F. Hamilton, Jr. **
Oso Square II Apartments
I. D. Hanawalt ***
Insurance Associates, Inc.
Roger A. Haney ***
Haney & Associates
S. J. Haremza
Roblin Steel Company
Theodore E. Haringa *
Lawrence R. McCoy & Co., Inc.
Janette Harris Reese **
Lindsay Newspapers, Inc.
Page 9
Joseph F. Hayes *
Honeywell
Derr ell Heath **
Peerless Mfg. Co.
Herbert Herman *******
Decisionex, Inc.
Ellen A. HUdenbrand *******
Mine Safety Appliances
Terry L. Hill **
Welborn Baptist Hospital
Jack B. Hobbs ***
Logical Software, Inc.
Ben Holdridge ***
H & H Petroleum Corp.
Walter Holland, Jr. *******
Olin Corp.
Jonathan Hubbell *
O.W. Hubbell & Sons, Inc.
Gerald Hurley ***
Julien J. Studley, Inc.
Donald A. Jackson *
Donald A. Jackson & Assoc.
Erik Jensen ***
First Security Bank
John L. Johnson
Science Management Corp.
R. R. Johnson **
Oil Center Station
Ed Juge
Radio Shack
Gary L. Kepler **
Vagabond Hotels, Inc.
Donald H. King
Science Management Corp.
Roily Kinney *
AFI
Thomas Kirkham ***
Housing Industry Dynamics
Milton S. Kiver *
Industrial & Scientific
Conf. Mgmt., Inc.
A. M. Kneitel *******
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.
George Kokell **
Lipper Analytical Dist. Inc.
Patricia Kottke
Petro W. Kozak **
M. M. Kuchaes *****
Standard Oil Company
Peter C. Kuiken **
Chemplast, Inc.
Joseph Kulin ***
Foundation Center
Herbert L. LaBin **
Daniel F. Langenwalter ***
Integrated Business Systems
Pricilla Langewiesche *******
Ethicon, Inc.
C. W. La Pierre *
P. S. Larsen **
Control Data Corp.
Joseph P. Lamb ***
United Penn Bank
Charles Laudeman ***
TCR Service, Inc.
Larry Launch *
Tandem Computers, Inc.
Donald J. LaVigne *
David Lawrence **
MDM Systems Inc.
Sally L. Ledger ***
ICI Americas, Inc.
Michael Lee **
C. W. Leggette *
Actuarial Mgmt. Sues, Inc.
Arthur R. Lehl *
Rocky Mtn. Bank Note Co.
Robert J. Levine
The Center for Professional
Advancement
Roger Levit ***
Bernard Liebowitz *
Jack Liles *
KIM Inc.
Dan Lind
Prism Management Systems, Inc.
Michael Liszka **
Kishwaukee College
Bernard F. Lyons
Systems Branch, Ministry of
Community & Social Services
C. S. MacBlane ***
Am. Dade - Div. of AHSC
Dave Mackie *
Tandem Computers, Inc.
W. H. Mackie **
Control Data Corp.
Efrem Mallach *
Honeywell
Karen H. Manello
Kendall Co.
H. Margulis *****
Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
Steve Marienhoff ***
Adams Press
Thomas W. Markosky ***
Medical Management Control
Harvey W. Marks *
Visual Aid Center, Inc.
Ron Marthaller **
Pioneer Mutual Life Ins. Co.
J. S. Martin ***
Marwood Rental Service, Inc.
Joseph Matthews ***
J. Matthews & Assoc.
Jerome Mattscheck ***
The Provident Bank
Maxim G. Maw *
ITT Electronic Travel Sues. Inc.
Bron J. McCall
United Telecommunications
Computer Group
Jerry McClun **
Interstate Printing Co.
Robert S. McCormick ***
Weinberg & Green
Dennis McEvoy *
Tandem Computers, Inc.
Robert R. McLean **
Host International
Paul D. McNulty ***
Linford, Jenson, Bradford
David E. Melendy *
Home Stake Production Co.
Bruce G. Mills *
Chartmasters, Inc.
Charles P. Moore **
Charles P. Moore & Assoc.
Dwight Moore *
First Bank Minneapolis
James K. Moore
Science Applications, Inc.
Roland L. Moore *
Computer Hardware Sales, Inc.
Philip N. Moos *
Colin A. Morris
Donovan Data Systems
Robert Moulton **
Homestake Mining Co.
Mike Murach ***
Mike Murach & Assoc., Inc.
John B. Nelson *
Percomco, Inc.
Martin J. Neville ******
Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren & Ashton
Eric Nielson ***
Huron Automatic Screw Co.
Lawrence J. Nightlinger ***
CAP
Tom O’Brien ***
Boatmen’s National Bank
Edward O’Callaghan
Honeywell
Thomas E. O’Connor, Jr. **
McCarter & English
Alan O’Neill
T & E Engineering
James Paddock ***
Brunt & Company
G. V. Pape ***
Bristol-Myers
James M. Patrick ***
Patrick & Co.
R. J. Patrick ******
Witco Chemical Corp.
John Patterson *
Radio Shack
James W. Patus **
Louisville-Jefferson County
Board of Health
Robert H. Pederson **
Universal Services, Inc.
John B. Pegram ***
Davis, Hoxie, Faithfull &
Hapgood
R. A. Pelletier **
C. F. Hathaway Co.
Richard A. Penhallegon *******
Upjohn
Jerry Peterson *
Tandem Computers, Inc.
James A. Pilversack **
H.C.A.
Fred Pisoni ***
Wyatt Company
Gary N. Powell **
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Anthony J. Praza **
Speed Queen Company
N. M. Quinn **
Computer Processing Institute
James Ragazzo
Honeywell
John A. Richard *
Social Security Administration
Wendell Richardson ****
Computer Management Center
Jack B. Rochester
Computerworld
Thomas G. Rolfe ****
CCH Computax, Inc.
Lynn B. Rose *
Sydel International Inc.
William A. Rousseau *******
Alpine Engineered Products
Debra A. Rowe ***
Sentry Life Insurance
G. M. Rueger **
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Larry Schmieder **
Computer Sharing Services
Edward J. Schmit **
CFS Continental, Inc.
David A. Schneberger ***
Reynolds & Reynolds
Arthur H. Schneyman *******
Mobil Oil Corporation
Steven A. Scrignoli *
Scrignoli, Fitzsimmons & Assoc.
Hillel Segal *******
Association of Computer Users
James A. Shafer ***
Arizona Geriatric Enterprise
Jon Shirley *
Radio Shack, Div. of Tandy
Scott Siegel *
Gil Schwartz Distributors
C. A. Siegfried, Jr. ***
American Rental Assoc.
John A. Siewert ***
World Vision International
Calvin Simmons **
Simmons Management Services
Waldo O. Smeby ***
Metalcraft, Inc.
Don R. Smith
Price Waterhouse & Co.
Gary Smith **
New Mexico Tech. Computer Crt.
Steve Smith ***
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Joseph B. Smock ***
Warner-Lambert Co.
Stephen Snyder ***
PFA Members Sue. Corp.
John A. Staff ***
Cortland Container Corp.
Don Stanfield *
Radio Shack
Herbert Starr ***
Stanley Vemco
Martha S. Staszak ***
Northwestern Mutual Life Ins.
Karin Steinbrenner ****
Nat’l Opinion Research Ctr.
Leon P. Stevens ******.*
Standard Oil Company
C. A. Stokes **
Automated Business Systems
Gene Straub ***
Cordle & Company
Bambang Sunjoto *
T. L. Terrell, Jr. **
Tyson Foods, Inc.
Richard A. Thibodeau *****
Limra
Jerry J. Throckmorton ***
Peter G. Tuckerman *
Com-Dev, Inc.
John M. Tym
Continental Risk Services
Clarence E. Tyner, Jr. **
School Board of
Hillsborough County
Peter J. Valter **
Hospital Path. Central Lab.
E. Vambutas ***
Digital Interface Systems Corp.
Edward Villani *
GM Corporation
Joseph N. Vitale **
Computer Application Consul.
Darrel Wafer **
Hydrill-AOS Division
D. L. Wagner **
Moore & Company
Holon Wong Shuk Wai
Robin Information Systems
Robert M. Walter **
Eversman Mfg. Co.
Bob Warrens *****
J. Walter Thompson
A. H. Warshawsky *******
Marmon Group
Bennett C. Watson
Responsive Computer Systems
Thomas M. Watts *
Syracuse University
Erick F. Weiland **
Barringer Resources
Charles W. Wieland **
Electrocube, Inc.
Jay N. Willard **
Leader Data Processing
Jerry D. Williams **
Tocon Construction Corp.
R. L. Wolfe **
Old Dominion University
Lonnie C. Yee *
Oil & Gas Data Processing, Inc.
K. P. Zech ****
Ford, Navarre & Zech, Inc.
V. Von Zwehl **
Varn Prod. Co., Inc.
Interactive Computing
Page 10
Why Does Everyone Hate DP?
by Jesse Berst
As computers become cheaper and easier to use, non technical personnel will be responsible for a larger
share of computer-related tasks. That’s tomorrow. Today, however, DPers still shoulder most of the
computing burden, and the problems that go with it. One of the most common difficulties is poor relations
with end users. It’s one of the hardest to overcome, too, because unlike most DP problems, it doesn’t
respond to the technical solutions DP professionals are comfortable with. That doesn’t mean the situation
can’t be improved, however, as we find out in this report about the real-life techniques being put to use at
several computer installations.
Scars And Gripes Forever
There’s no way to know for sure, but the problem
of end user relations has probably been around as
long as the computer itself. When the switch was
first thrown in February, 1946, ENIAC was more
than likely overdue and over budget. Somewhere in
that huge room with its blinking lights and 19,000
tubes there undoubtedly lurked a miffed end user,
grumbling to himself that ENIAC wasn’t “quite
what I had in mind.”
Ever since those days, the battle lines have been
drawn between the people who provide computer
power and those who use it. Computer technology
has always scared off end users, who have instead
imported specialists to care for their computers,
technicians who are usually set apart from their
fellow workers. They labor in a separate area; they
speak a specialized language; they form a mys¬
terious technological enclave. To many users, the
DP department seems to be a haughty—if not
downright hostile—high priesthood.
End user Jim Phelan, principal engineer at the
Nuclear Service Division of Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, gave this typical response when
asked if he has problems dealing with DPers: “All
the time. There’s a lack of understanding of end
users’ needs and of our urgency. And there’s a lack
of discipline. DPers fail to set and keep schedules,
to organize, to order materials on time, to pass
information along.”
Phelan cites as an example a case where the
equipment showed up after the floor plan and
wiring were already done. There was no place to
put it nor any electricity available, because the DP
department had “forgotten” to tell users that it was
coming.
And don’t think that disgruntled end users are
found only at large corporations. Small users tell
the same kind of horror stories. Bill Griffin, vice-
president of Griffin Hardware in Santa Ana,
California, told me that dealing with DP types is the
most frustrating part of computerizing his store.
“They live in another world,” he complains. “You
tell them you want one kind of program and they
come back with another. Everything has to be
redone over and over again.”
The users I spoke with gave me enough grievances
to fill up the rest of this article, but perhaps it was
Don Smith of Diamond Shamrock’s International
Technology Unit who gave the best summary of
why users don’t always get along with DPers.
Smith, who is Vice-President, Administration, said
that the DP department has a “credibility pro¬
blem.” They don’t deliver what they say they
will; they don’t deliver it on time; and they don’t
deliver it within budget.
“Every time DP lets a piece slip, users get more
disenchanted,” he said. “If you give your wife $100
and she breaks her promise and spends $150,
you’ve got a credibility problem. If she does it every
week for 10 years, you’ve got a big credibility
problem.”
DP Suffers
That credibility problem costs the DP department
in a number of obvious ways: loss of respect,
January 1982
Page 11
lowered budgets, missed promotions, and acri¬
monious on-the-job relationships with users.
What’s more, says Howard Tureff, Chairman of
ACU’s Large Computer Section, when users lose
faith in their DP department they develop systems
themselves or go outside to buy them. “They may
get it done quicker or even cheaper, but it creates
ongoing compatibility and maintenance problems
that end up back in the DP department. In the long
run, it doesn’t help anyone.” Tureff is manager of
Engineering Computer Resources for Gould, Inc.
More and more DP people have realized that they
pay a heavy price when end user relations are
poor. In a spirit of enlightened self-interest, many
have developed ways to improve the situation. As
described below, most of the solutions are based
on common sense theories that have been around
for a long time. Our purpose, however, is not to
rehash the old bromides, but to show how a few
companies have translated those theories into
actual practice.
continued . . .
“Hey, I thought we were all supposed to be on the same team!”
Interactive Computing
Page 12
Talk To Me!
Of all the things end users say they want from the
DP department, better communications probably
tops the list. Computerworld columnist Jack Stone
thinks that improving communications is crucial to
DP managers’ success, and even to their survival.
“Simply stated,” he wrote recently, “DP manage¬
ment must seek out and put into sensitive interface
slots those people who can deal easily with
particular [user] populations. For those managers
concerned about their longevity, I make this
suggestion: get communicators in or prepare to get
out.”
“The end user must have a
critical role in the decision to
invest in the application . .
More and more DP managers are taking this
advice. One common strategy employs a form of
“shuttle diplomacy.” Many organizations have
created special job slots for individuals whose
major responsibility is to act as a bridge between
users and DPers. At Zayre Corporation, a $1.5-
billion East Coast retailing firm that employs 300
DP personnel, the technique is known as the
“Business System Interface.” Involved are senior
staff members with both DP and user know-how.
While representing user departments, they report
to the DP department. Zayre’s top management
considers them indispensable for such tasks as
systems definitions, cost/benefit analyses, accep¬
tance testing and implementation.
The Upjohn Company has had a similar system for
several years, according to corporate time-sharing
administrator Larry Leslie, who serves as the
chairman of ACU’s Time-Sharing Section. While
the Zayre group is staffed about fifty-fifty with users
and with DPers, the Upjohn interface organization
is made up exclusively of DPers who have
demonstrated competence in dealing with users.
They report to the Director of Information
Systems, but their job is to represent the user
community in the planning and development of
major systems.
In a similar vein, Jim Phelan reports that
Westinghouse has had considerable success with a
steering committee composed of department level
managers and other interested parties from both
the DP and the user communities. He calls the
group “an extreme benefit—it really improved our
ability to get things going. Now that we’ve got a
dialogue started, a lot of the barriers are
disappearing. We are beginning to understand the
DP department better and they don’t seem so
unreasonable.”
Read All About It!
Although groups like the ones described above
may foster a dialogue between key individuals, they
cannot serve the needs of the entire user
community. To spread the word a bit further, some
DP departments have turned to newsletters and
questionnaires.
At Upjohn, for example, a questionnaire goes to
major users asking them to evaluate all facets of
the computer service they are receiving: how
accurately the DP department estimates costs; if
DP is delivering systems in time; if maintenance is
adequate; and so on for 40 questions. The results
are summarized and distributed to all DP man¬
agers. Larry Leslie says he appreciates the chance
to find out what clients are really saying about his
services because “inevitably, you see some areas
where you are weak and can improve.”
Howard Tureff reports that Gould has a similar
questionnaire. He warns, however, that knowing
about user complaints and doing something about
them are two different things. Usually the DP
department doesn’t have the manpower or the
January 1982
Page 13
budget to please all of the people all of the time. In
cases like this, Tureff says he uses the question¬
naire as a marketing tool to sell top management
on increasing the budget. “When I talk to
management, I can go in with a stack of the reports
showing what users really want and are com¬
plaining about. It really helps me document my
case.”
Still, Tureff doesn’t always get everything he wants
from top management. When I talked to him, for
example, users were complaining about his over¬
loaded computer, but he hadn’t gotten funding
approval for improvements. In such cases, he does
his best to keep users aware of the roadblocks
faced by the DP department so that DPers aren’t
cast as the villains. To help get the word out, he
has instituted a bimonthly newsletter. In addition to
keeping the client community informed of pro¬
blems and their causes, the newsletter also keeps
them up-to-date on changes, gives instructional
information, and passes along helpful hints contri¬
buted by the users themselves.
Tureff warns, however, that although better
communication will let users know the DP
department is aware of the problems, it won’t solve
any of them. In fact, more communication may
raise user expectations and make matters worse
unless DP can ultimately make some improve¬
ments.
More User Involvement Can Help
At Gould, says Tureff, real improvement came
when users began to do a lot of the development
work themselves. This strategy has been recom¬
mended over and over again in the industry press,
and it should certainly join better communications
as one of the standard prescriptions for improving
end user relations.
Dave Mollen, a Datamation contributor and an
instructor at IBM’s Systems Science Institute, has
said: “From long experience with both DP
professionals and end users, I am absolutely
convinced the most important single factor affect¬
ing applications development is how well the
participants fulfill their roles.”
What is the right role for users? “The end user
must have a critical role in the decision to invest in
the application, in its design and in its implemen¬
tation,” Mollen said. “The DP manager should
never be the person to decide the next application
to be implemented.” True, some DPers still don’t
like users “tagging along,” but more and more
computer professionals are insisting on user
involvement to ensure that the project will meet
with acceptance and reflect well on the DP
department.
Many experts now agree that the DP department
should play the same role as an architect. First, it
should act as a consultant, helping the user design
the system he wants. Next, it should oversee the
continued on page 15
Interactive Computing
Page 14
Why DP Projects Miscarry . . .
As outlined in this month’s feature article, end users and DP personnel are often at each others’
throats. Each group blames the other for DP failures. Perhaps the real problem is that both sides
have been ignoring the truism immortalized by Murphy: “If anything can go wrong, it will.” After all,
nowhere in the realm of business does Murphy’s Law prevail with more horrendous effects than in
the design and installation of new computer-based systems.
In the development of computerized business systems, a great many things notoriously can, and too
often do, go awry. Only those who will use the system are in a position to say what they want it to
do. Only the DP staff can say what the system can be expected to do. Between them they are
capable of producing the worst of all possible systems.
To senior management, the trials and tribulations of the systems development project may often
seem incomprehensible. Insight into the problems may, however, be gained through an
understanding of Murphy’s Laws of Computerdom, which distill—in facetious but pragmatic
fashion—the painful experiences of many individuals who have undertaken the thankless task of
managing such a project.
No major computer application is ever installed on time, within budget,
with the same staff that started it, nor does it do exactly what it is
supposed to. This law has two corollaries: First, the benefits will be smaller than initially
estimated, if estimates were made at all. Second, the applications finally implemented will be
implemented late and won’t meet all specifications.
The effort required to correct course increases geometrically with
time. Corollaries: (1) The longer you wait to define your objectives, the harder
it will be. (2) After installation it will be too late; define your objectives now. Communicating the
system’s scope early and clearly is essential for establishing understanding between the technician
and the ultimate user.
The system’s purposes as understood by the proposer will be seen
differently by everyone else. Corollaries: (1) If you explain everything so
clearly that nobody could possible misunderstand, somebody is sure to. (2) If you do something that
is bound to meet with everyone’s approval, somebody will hate it.
Only measurable benefits are real. Intangible benefits are not
measurable; hence, intangible benefits are not real. Top management
needs to know how long the project will take, how much it will cost and what resources will be
required to carry it out. Weighing the answers to these questions against the specific benefits
expected from the system can help determine whether the project is, in fact, justified in whole or in
part. Here is another demonstration of the familiar “80/20 rule”: typically, the bulk of a project’s
benefits are derived from a fraction of the total effort.
The greater the project’s technical complexity, the less need there is
for a technician to manage it. Corollary: Get the best non technical
manager you can; he’ll find the needed technicians. The reverse is almost never true.
Mr. Crandell was formerly with McKinsey & Co., the international management consulting firm, where he developed a
special interest in the management of computer-related activities. He is currently a General Partner of Brentwood
Associates, a Los Angeles venture capital firm.
i
January 1982
Page 15
by George M. Crandell, Jr.
Every DP project takes longer and costs more. Corollaries: (1) A
carelessly planned project will take three times longer to complete than
expected. (2) A carefully planned project will take only twice as long. (3) Time is money.
If anything can go wrong, it will. It is while the actual work of design and
implementation is under way that Murphy’s most famous Law takes over.
Corollaries: (1) If nothing can possibly go wrong, it will anyway. (2) Even problems that are
anticipated will have totally unforseen consequences.
When things are going well, something is sure to go wrong. Corollaries:
(1) When things just can’t get any worse, they will anyway. (2) When
everything seems to be going better, something has been overlooked.
Projects progress quickly until they are 90 percent complete,
then remain there forever. Managers can significantly influence the
project’s chances of success by monitoring progress. Few project teams relish progress reviews,
because they can cruelly expose schedule slippages and shortcomings in performance. When
progress reviews are held, therefore, estimated percentages of work completed should be
interpreted very carefully; large estimating errors may have crept in.
If project content is allowed to change freely, the rate of change will
exceed the rate of progress. Along with monitoring progress, a key
managerial task in the “during” phase is to ensure that the project’s scope doesn’t get out of hand.
Failure to control expanding project scope is one of the most common pitfalls in systems
development. This pitfall, however, can be successfully avoided by specifying in advance a workable
change-control procedure, and postponing all non-essential changes until the basic application is fully
operational.
If the system fails, the user will lose faith in it. Corollaries: (1) If the user
does not believe in the system, he will develop a parallel system. (2) Neither
system will work very well. The final managerial task in the “during” phase is to ensure that when the
system is completed its benefits are actually realized. The best method of doing this is planned
parallel testing of the system in the real environment. If the system is installed and turned over to the
user before the major bugs are eliminated, the chances that it will ever be profitably used will be
greatly diminished.
If users aren’t complaining about the system, they probably aren’t
making enough use of it.
Benefits achieved are a function of what is inspected (post-audit
check), not what’s expected. An objective post-implementation audit,
designed and scheduled in advance, can serve as a strong incentive to deliver a sound product on
schedule. In planning the audit, everyone involved should agree in advance what is to be measured,
how, when and by whom.
Perhaps no systems development effort will ever entirely escape Murphy’s Laws of Computerdom.
But if, in planning each stage of the process, they are kept constantly in mind, the chances of
^ success will be greatly increased.
Interactive Computing
Page 16
construction of the system. Finally, when things go
wrong, it takes care of repairs.
“As users get smarter, a lot of the
friction and a lot of the problems
go away.”
Mollen cites an East Coast insurance company that
was among the earliest to adopt the team approach
to applications development. When it sought to
pioneer a new distributed claims processing
application, it tapped a claims manager as the
project leader, not a DPer. The resulting working
relationship between users and DPers enabled this
first-time application to be installed on time—with
kudos from users and customers alike.
When TRW, Inc., of Cleveland first introduced
computers, “they got the equipment and looked for
problems to solve afterwards,” according to their
retired MIS manager, Clay Lange. That approach
led to user resistance. When it came time to bring
word processors on board, the company took the
participatory approach instead. Before the new
machines were rolled in, TRW devoted three
months to interviews soliciting the opinions of 350
employees. Then the company installed the
machines first in those departments that welcomed
them the most. The approach resulted in more
productivity and less resistance.
Likewise, Japanese companies have demonstrated
an uncanny ability to implement systems success¬
fully, due in part to a tremendous amount of user
participation. Perhaps the participation approach
boils down to this adage: Don’t try to force-feed
users with systems and applications you feel “will
be good for them.” Insist that they get involved
from the start. Early user involvement means less
time spent redesigning and recoding systems when
they weren’t what the client wanted.
How do you convince busy users to participate?
Consultant and former manager David K. Undo
suggests beginning with this theme: “Information
that leads to action.” Then build a detailed plan
that incorporates these steps: a steering com¬
mittee, careful introduction of change, thorough
education of users, constant publicity, and direct
user involvement.
Be careful though—user participation can backfire.
“I’m skeptical of those approaches that call for a
long-drawn-out process of participation,” ACU
member Arnold M. Kneitel has been quoted as
saying. “There are times when you have to be
dictatorial. With the hundreds of users, you can’t
keep everyone happy. And anyway, it’s not
necessary. What you have to do is keep everyone
productive.” Kneitel is a commercial information
manager for DuPont.
Raising Computer IQ
Jim Phelan points out that it’s not necessary to
coerce users into getting involved if they under¬
stand in advance the benefits they can get by
working together with DP. That brings us to
another method of improving relations: user
education. As Phelan puts it: “As users get
smarter, a lot of the friction and a lot of the
problems go away.” He actively strives to improve
his DP know-how, learning how to do the
documentation, how to configure and set up
equipment, etc. “I learn to do as much of the work
as I can,” he explains, “so I can keep the DP
experts working on the hard stuff.”
Even if they are not blessed with clients like Phelan
who educate themselves, DPers can still raise the
computer IQ of the user community. One good
example is provided by Gould, Inc., where Howard
Tureff has instituted training classes for users in his
his area. He currently has at least one class going
on at all times, and the classes have proved so
successful that he is expanding the program.
January 1982
Page 17
One class is designed for beginners. It offers
general information: what the computer system
offers and how to use it. For users with some DF
experience, and for those who have take the first
class, a second course delves into the command
structure and the available utilities. In the past,
Tureff’s section has offered classes in PASCAL,
and other programming classes are in the works.
Tureff admits that many of his users are engineers,
who are more knowledgeable and motivated than
most users. Nevertheless, he believes additional
user education would help in other environments.
For a typical MIS department, he believes the
classes should concentrate on: 1) a summary of the
systems development process; 2) the economics of
computer use; and 3) how to get the MIS
department to accomplish what users want.
The emphasis of such training should be on
teaching users how to solve their own development
problems, so the DP department doesn’t have to
do it for them. Users often resist the idea of
detailed definitions. After all, such definitions are a
lot of hard work— theirs. But when users under¬
stand that specifications are necessary to get what
they want, they usually cooperate. Training classes
can help sell the idea of user involvement in the
development process. Once the benefits have been
explained to users, they no longer see it as
bureaucratic red tape.
Take A Look At DPer Education
Although experienced DPers tell me it’s wise to
foster better user training, don’t forget the
education of DPers. Every time DPers upgrade
their skills at programming or project management
it improves their ability to deliver timely, cost-
effective products to users. In the final analysis,
there is no better way to improve end user
relations. And don’t think that technical classes are
the only good option. If DPers want to improve end
user relations—and indeed, their own careers—
they’d be wise to invest some time learning non¬
technical skills.
In a recent issue of Computerworld, consultant
William Bearley and accountant Michael Wood
stressed the need for additional non-technical
education for DPers: “When observing DP tech¬
nicians attempting [to interface with users], it
becomes apparent that they are untrained. The
typical analyst’s initial education and experience is
in programming. The title ‘analyst’ is merely a
prerequisite to obtaining a higher salary and has
little or no bearing on that person’s ability to work
with people effectively.”
“Today, most good analysts
evolve by accident rather than by
planning.”
“Today,” they continued, “most good analysts
evolve by accident rather than by planning. We
believe that part of the analyst’s grooming should
include training in effective communications skills,
organizational theory, management theory and
human behavior.”
Run A Mile In Their Shoes
Bearley and Wood’s comment about human
behavior leads us into the final topic of our
discussion. Involvement in planning helps end
users to better understand DPers, and by the same
token, DPers can become more popular and make
their own jobs easier if they understand what
motivates end users. Over and over again, users
complained to me that DPers don’t understand
their needs, particularly their sense of urgency.
Users have to run hard just to keep up, and they
resent being slowed by DPers who seem to have
no comprehension of the pressing demands of
everyday business life.
continued on page 25
Interactive Computing
Page 18
Putting Computers To Work:
How Three ACU Members Use Small Computers by Jesse Berst
One benefit of ACU membership is the opportunity to make contact with other computer users, since
people who have put computerization into practice usually have some good ideas to pass along. You’ll
probably pick up a good idea or two from this issue, which features brief case histories of three ACU
members.
ACU’s Diversity
This issue’s three case histories reflect the diversity
of ACU’s membership. We spoke to a professional,
a small businessperson, and a user from a
corporate environment. The broad range of their
computer experiences shows that, no matter what
your situation, there is probably an ACU member
out there who’s been through it all before. Here is
a summary of what three people went through
when they decided to put a computer to work.
The Professional
Neal Koss, M.D., is a Torrance, California, plastic
surgeon in solo practice. He employs one full-time
secretary-receptionist, a part-time Registered Nurse
and a part-time bookkeeper. Although he’s been
involved with computers for over 18 years, it
wasn’t until about two years ago that he decided to
buy a small computer for his practice.
His choice was an Industrial Micro Systems
product—a 64K Z-80 microcomputer with an
8-inch floppy drive, Beehive CRT, CP/M operating
system and a TI 810 printer. He later purchased a
second micro (this one a similar Z-80 system from
No Name Computers) for his home. Most people
won’t need two computers, but Dr. Koss wanted a
machine at home because one of his hobbies is
developing software. In the past, he has spent time
developing statistical software and operating sys¬
tems for medical data analysis in research
environments.
Users with data processing experience like Dr.
Koss have certain advantages when it comes to
putting a computer to work. For instance, when
Koss decided to automate his general ledger and
accounts payable, he started with Osborne pack¬
aged software, then modified the programs exten¬
sively. His programs now feature faster screen
manipulations and improved search techniques.
He’s also added things that he was unable to find in
any package, such as asset file maintenance for
tracking assets, applying depreciation, and so on.
Although the experiences of Dr. Koss illustrate the
advantages of programming know-how, they also
demonstrate some of the drawbacks to the do-it-
yourself approach. Although Koss has plenty of
expertise, he doesn’t always have enough time to
use it. Meanwhile, his computer is not being used
to its fullest extent. One example is accounts
receivable and medical billing; that application must
wait while he completes a program he is developing
together with other medical people.
Meanwhile, the computer doesn’t do much besides
general ledger accounting, and that means that
Koss doesn’t get full value out of it. He hopes to
change that soon by purchasing a second terminal
and a letter-quality printer that will let his secretary
use the computer for word processing.
With his considerable computer know-how, it’s not
surprising that Dr. Koss has given talks to medical
groups about computerization, and was formerly
president of the Society for Computer Medicine.
Although he calls himself a computer “fanatic” and
says he’d like to see more people get involved with
computers, he warns that buying a computer can
be hazardous to your pocketbook.
“It’s very easy to get tripped up by a lot of bells and
whistles into getting something you don’t need,” he
cautions. “I’ve seen too many of my colleagues
buying $30-40,000 systems when that was more
than they needed. Such systems are not only too
expensive, they are too sophisticated and too
January 1982
Page 19
complex. The buyers found they couldn’t under¬
stand them and no one in their office could either.”
How can users avoid such problems? “The number
one thing,” Koss counsels, “is to find someone who
already knows about computers and learn from
him. Don’t just go out and listen to dealers—they
are not on your side.”
The Small Businessperson
Jaffra Masad is secretary/treasurer of Mechanical
Maintenance and Service Corporation, a small firm
that services heating and air conditioning units for
commercial establishments in the San Francisco
“It’s very easy to get tripped up
by a lot of bells and whistles into
getting something you don’t
need.”
area. After using an outside payroll service for
some time, she decided to purchase an in-house
system. In September of 1980, the company
brought in an Alpha Micro system. Previously, all
accounting functions other than payroll had been
done by hand, but the company was growing and
management wanted better control. It needed
reports that would have been cumbersome to
generate by hand.
Masad and her colleagues went about computer¬
ization very intelligently. First, they made some
decisions about where they wanted to be a few
years down the road. Since they were considering
offering computer services to outside clients in the
future, they knew they had to find a machine that
could expand. They also knew they wanted to buy
from a single vendor. “We didn’t want to get into a
situation of hardware from one company, software
from another and all of them pointing fingers at
each other,” Masad explained.
The local Alpha Micro dealer was able to offer a
complete package of accounts receivable, accounts
payable, general ledger, payroll, and job cost.
That’s not to say, however, that everything was
perfect. Masad describes the job cost program as
“pitifully inadequate,” but here again Masad and
her company thought ahead. Because they got a
written commitment for a working job cost system,
the dealer is now developing a new package, which
is due to be installed soon. Once the job cost
program is perfected, it will interface with the other
accounting programs.
Unlike Dr. Koss, who has never had any trouble
with equipment, Ms. Masad initially experienced
hardware problems. The floppy disk turned out to
be faulty; what’s more, it turned out to be too
small, and Masad quickly grew tired of “constantly
pulling disks in and out.” A switch to a Control
Data hard disk overcame this roadblock.
Right now, much of the firm’s efforts center on
bringing the computer up to full speed. The job
cost program will be a big addition and the
company also wants to make full use of the Alpha’s
word processing capabilities. Further down the
road, says Masad, she hopes to hook up the
computer to clients’ heating and air conditioning
equipment. Such an energy monitoring service
would help customers lower their energy costs.
As a first-time computer buyer who did most things
right, Masad can offer a few pointers to others.
“Whatever you do, get it in writing!” was the first
thing she volunteered when I asked her for advice
to pass along. She also suggested that buyers
study their own operation carefully before talking
to vendors. “If you don’t know what you are trying
to do, you won’t be able to explain it to the
vendors. They will come in and make all kinds of
promises, but they won’t understand what you
need—even if they say they do.”
Interactive Computing
Page 20
Ms. Masad also believes that computer users
should try to cut software costs by starting out
with packaged programs. “Before you spend any
money on custom software, at least try out a
package to see if your business can fit. Often, small
things in a package can be fixed or changed, if you
have a good vendor. If packages prove to be
impossible, then go for custom programming.”
The Corporate Computer User
Donald Macleod’s case provides a striking example
of the growing importance of computers in the
corporate world—and of their importance to
computer users’ careers. Currently a programmer/
analyst at Rexnord, Inc., a $l-billion Milwaukee-
based conglomerate, Macleod was originally an
engineer. When his interest in computers became
obvious, he was put in charge of outside time¬
sharing services, and later asked to chair a
committee in charge of transferring certain outside
time-sharing applications to in-house desktop
computers. About three years ago, he became a
full-time member of the corporate DP department
when it decided to set up in-house time sharing.
Since then this former computer user has become
a full-fledged computer professional. He has
learned to program in COBOL, worked on the
development of a comprehensive order entry/
inventory system for the six company warehouses
around the country, and is now involved in
computer-aided-design (CAD) and computer-aided-
manufacturing (CAM).
Macleod first encountered ACU through its
Benchmark Reports. His company decided that
outside time sharing had become too expensive; so
Macleod headed up an investigation into the use of
small computers instead. The reports influenced
his choice of a Hewlett-Packard System 45.
From Macleod’s vantage point, vendors are one of
the trouble spots for users, whether they own large
computers, small computers, or—like his com¬
pany—both. “You’re always going to have some
problems with vendors,” he said. His experiences
with Datapoint serve as an illustration. Rexnord
formerly used a Datapoint machine for order entry,
and currently employs it as a front-end communi¬
cations processor for an IBM mainframe. Macleod
describes Datapoint’s service record as “spotty.”
“In some locations, their service is superb,” he
said. “In others we had an awful time. We had a lot
of trouble getting the maintenance people to react.
We felt we were training their people.” The moral
for small computer users is that they should not
rely on a vendor’s national reputation, but on its
ability to service them locally.
“You’re always going to have
some problems with vendors.”
Macleod has another warning that’s worth remem¬
bering as small computers continue to make
inroads into the corporate environment. “The
biggest problems are always people problems. I call
it inertia, the reluctance to accept something new
on the part of the people who are going to benefit
from it. You’ve got to convince them that the
benefits will be worth the effort to change.”
ACU Can Help
As you’ve seen above, ACU members have a wide
range of computer experience to share with other
users. We’d like to remind you of ACU’s local
contacts, whose phone numbers are listed on the
back cover. Don’t forget this valuable resource
when you are looking for answers to computer-
related questions. If you don’t have a contact yet in
your area, try ACU’s home-office phone referral
service. We can often pass along advice from other
users, or even put you in touch with another
member who has the information you need to put
your computer to work. Q
January 1982
Page 21
.V
IBM’s User Friendly Operating System—VM/CMS by Phillip Good, Ph D.
Sixteen years ago IBM introduced its OS family of operating systems, still in use today. That same year,
IBM scientists gave a demonstration of an experimental concept they called “the virtual machine,” but
sixteen years ago, costs were measured in dollars per kilobyte—and this experiment was an expensive one.
The VM (virtual machine) went back on the shelf. Today, personnel, not hardware, is the major expense of
data processing, and IBM’s virtual machine system program is a marketed reality.
VM offers substantial advantages for the systems programmer, applications programmer and end user
alike. With it, your center will profit from decreased down time, greater system flexibility, improved morale,
and increased file and system security. But the VM system is not error free, and caution is advised during
the first months of use. In this month’s article, author Phillip Good looks at the pros and cons.
Designed For The Systems Manager
VM’s primary beneficiary was to have been the
systems manager. Test and production operating
systems, the new and the old, can be run
concurrently because each user has his own virtual
machine. An operating system conversion or
modification can be accomplished without shutting
down production activities.
The secondary benefits of the virtual machine are
no less important, even if they are less obvious. As
computers have grown larger and their operating
systems more complex, the user has felt less and
less in control. A drop in programmer productivity
has accompanied a drop in programmer morale.
VM manages the resources of a single IBM or IBM
plug-compatible computer so that each user is led
to feel he or she has control over the processors,
storage, and input/output devices of the entire
system.
By entering commands at a VM terminal, a user
can perform almost all the functions an operator
can perform on a real machine system console.
The user can load any of the old or new operating
systems, start and stop virtual machine execution,
or display and change the contents of registers and
storage. In a curious twist—considering VM’s OS
predecessors—no job control language is needed
when compiling, linking or executing under control
of VM’s conversational monitor system, CMS.
Simplified Job Control
The OS family of operating systems was intro¬
duced by IBM in 1964 with the aim of reducing the
costs of applications programming. Under OS,
applications programs can be written without
regard to the input, output, or intermediate storage
devices that will be employed. With the aid of the
OS job control language, specification of input and
output devices and their locations can be done at
“The programmers loved the new
operating system.”
the time of execution. But OS specifications are
lengthy, and the OS job control language is cryptic
and difficult to learn. The combination of VM’s
control program (CP) and conversational monitor
system (CMS) simplifies job control immensely.
• Under OS, a set of cards or card images is
required to identify the user, his account and
his right to use the machine. VM provides
security without the fuss. A password is
required to sign on a virtual machine, but
thereafter identification is automatic each time
a job is submitted. System parameters may be
Interactive Computing
Page 22
set at sign-on through the aid of a user profile.
• OS job control provides for time limitations on
execution. Usually, the less time that is
requested, the higher the priority a job will be
given. The user must guess at the optimum for
his needs. VM’s monitor assigns its own
priorities. Highly interactive jobs are normally
“Many of VM/CMS’s best
features operate ‘behind the
scenes,’ making it far easier for
an end user to execute programs
without assistance.”
given the highest priority, receiving frequent
access to the real processor for short time
slices. Non-interactive users will normally be
given larger time slices at less frequent time
intervals.
• The OS job control language is both complex
and cryptic. By contrast, the VM control
languages (CP and CMS) are conversational
and easy to learn. Each VM user may have the
locations of his or her input/output devices
built into the system. The casual or occasional
user can run programs without a complete
refresher course.
• The program(s) to be performed, their types,
and their linkages have to be specified in the
OS job control language. VM linkages are
automatic. If special handling is required, help
functions and menus provide annotated guides
to any or all CP, CMS, or system utility
functions.
Other VM System Features
The VM system control program includes CP,
CMS, two EXECutive languages for creating
command modules, RSCS (a remote spooling
communications subsystem essential for passing
programs and files to and from existing instal¬
lations), and IPCS, an interactive peripheral control
system for diagnosing and controlling systems
problems. Unfortunately, two years after VM’s
commercial release not all of these components are
fully operational.
Several installations have complained of having to
buy VM twice. They bought the new enhanced
version of VM in order to take advantage of
optional enhancements such as the powerful new
XEDITor. Then, they had to turn right around and
buy the original bare-bones version in order to get
a working, thoroughly debugged copy of VM itself.
One Company’s Experience
Almost a year and a half ago, VM/CMS was
introduced to a midwest pharmaceutical company
through the back door. “It was the one time I
succeeded in pleasing everyone,” the computer
center manager told me, “at least for a while.” A
new project and a newly promoted project leader
had led to the installation of an additional
processor. With the new computer, an IBM
370/148, IBM offered the option of either VM/CMS
or OS/VS 1 free.
“I think the project leader chose CMS just to be
ornery,” the center manager said. But the
programmers loved the new operating system.
Soon all sorts of programmers who had nothing to
do with the project had moved their work to the
new machine. To counter the project leader’s
complaints about the invasion, the computer
center had IBM install VM/CMS on the old
computer. VM/RSCS, the remote spooling com¬
munications subsystem, was used to facilitate
withdrawal of all non-project users from the project
computer. Soon, the old computer began to attract
new and inexperienced users. “We’re talking about
a 3033 now,” the center manager said, “just
because so many more groups are using the
system.”
January 1982
Page 23
Benefits For
Every Systems User
VM offers the systems programmer :
• greater flexibility in scheduling
• greater latitude for experiment
VM provides the applications pro¬
grammer with:
• interactive compiling and debugging
• a full screen editor
• a display management system
• simplified program linkages
• executive command modules
VM makes few demands on the end
user and provides:
• full screen data entry
• menu displays
• help functions
• programs that execute with a single
command
VM offers systems management
• less down time
• simplified transition from existing
systems
• improved file security
• improved system security
There have been some sour notes. The Old Guard
demanded retention of OS/VS. The overhead
entailed in running OS subordinate to VM, a
compatibility feature highly touted by IBM, has
been almost prohibitive. And when the center
purchased the new VM Systems Product to
acquire optional program development tools, it
ended up paying for VM twice.
Program Development Tools
VM options include a variety of aids to program
development. Among these are three text editors,
EDIT, EDGAR and XEDIT; a text formatter,
SCRIPT; an interactive instructional system, IIS;
and DMS, a display management system.
XEDIT, the latest edition to the series of editors, is
the most powerful text editor available today; it is
superior to almost any (any) dedicated word
processing software when coupled with a text
formatter such as SCRIPT. Perhaps its one
limitation is an inability to display material on the
CRT as it will appear in print.
The display management system, DMS, interfaces
with any of the applications languages—BASIC,
COBOL, FORTRAN, PASCAL or PL1, to provide
for full screen data entry. The interactive instruc¬
tional system IIS is the preferred way to learn
about the VM system and its components.
More For The End User
Many of VM/CMS’s best features operate “behind
the scenes,” making it far easier for an end user to
execute programs without assistance. One exam¬
ple is full screen data entry. Another is the
EXECutive routine, a set of CP/CMS commands
assembled by the systems or applications program¬
mer. For example, when the user logs on the
system, a profile EXEC may:
• Assign printer and reader locations convenient
to the user;
• Assign user-specific functions to the terminal
keys;
• Link the user with his or her division and unit
data banks;
• Display a full screen menu of possible appli¬
cations; or
• Execute one or more desired applications
programs.
VM’s conversational monitor system allows the
end user to “chain” from one program to another.
Interactive Computing
Page 24
A single word or phrase—“XEDIT REPORT,” or
“APL”—appears to accomplish each of the desired
objectives. In actuality, a series of behind-the-
scenes commands written in CP, CMS or one of
the two executive languages accomplishes the
task.
“Programmer morale and produc
tivity will increase because
VM/CMS leaves the user feeling
in control.”
File and System Security
VM/CMS is a favorite with auditors. Though
VM/CMS makes it easy for each individual to gain
access to the full power of the computing facility, it
makes misuse difficult. Each file access leaves an
extensive audit trail. A password is required for the
user to access his virtual machine. And in addition
to the traditional protection provided by the
second-level operating system (whether CMS or
OS), VM isolates the real machine from any of its
non-privileged users. Students may tinker with the
registers and operating system of their virtual
machines without affecting any “real” components.
VM/CMS provides for several levels of file security:
• Completely restricted (for payroll and personnel
files);
• Read but do not copy (essential for time sharing
vendors);
• Read only (to handle queries to the management
information system); and
• Common.
Each file may be protected by up to five levels of
passwords. Yet VM lends itself to data base
management, precisely because it facilitates file
transfer between virtual machines. The conver¬
sational facilities make it easy to document and
maintain a coherent set of files amenable to central
control.
Buy Or Not Buy?
In deciding whether or not to go with VM/CMS,
the following pros and cons should be considered.
With it you can all but eliminate scheduled system
down times. You can modify the system or train
operators and systems programmers without
interrupting normal operations.
Programmer morale and productivity will increase
because although VM/CMS automatically makes
many decisions to improve resource allocation, it
leaves the user feeling in control. A full screen
editor, interactive debugging, and a display man¬
agement system facilitate program development.
You can eliminate many costly systems enhance¬
ments. For example, the features of ADR’s
Roscoe, Roscoe Time-Sharing, and Librarian are all
found within VM/CMS and IBM’s new VM System
Product. But beware: you may end up paying for
VM twice—once to get the optional enhancements,
and once to get a working bare-bones version.
You may not be able to get all the prepackaged
software you need. Most software vendors are in
the process of converting their packages to run
under CMS. But right now, for example, there is
no relational data base management system
available for use under CMS, not even IBM’s own
System R.
Question the costs—both hardware and software.
You don’t have to convert existing programs, since
IBM’s other operating systems like VS1 or MVS
can be run subordinate to VM. But your system
overhead will increase by 50 percent when running
VS1 or MVS under VM rather than under OS
alone. A systems programmer may have to be
assigned full time to tuning, debugging and
enhancing the system. And you may have to learn
to live with the limitations of VM as delivered.
C5
Tear on perforation, fold over and mail to ACU.
for new members . . .
Q
YES
1982 MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FORM
Please enter my membership in the Association of Computer Users for the 1982 Calendar Year.
This includes Interactive Computing, unlimited Section Memberships, and a Membership Materials
Binder.
SECTION MEMBERSHIPS
I have indicated below which section member¬
ships I would like to receive as a complimentary
part of my ACU membership.
Small Computer Section
Midi Computer Section
Large Computer Section
Word Processing Section
Distributed Processing Section
Time-Sharing Section
Home & Hobbyist Section
TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP
(check one)
Q Regular — For users and prospective
users of computer equipment or related
services.
D Associate — For those primarily
involved in the sale of computer
equipment, software or related services.
□ Subscription Only — Libraries,
government agencies, etc.
Please check the items below and indicate your preferred method of payment:
NOTE: For airmail postage overseas, $30 will be added for each item ordered.
□ 1982 ACU Membership Fee .$_ 6 5 -. 0Q
□ How to SELECT Your Small Computer . . .
Without Frustration. ACU’s Official Consumer Guide to
Business Computers—Vol. 1.1 .$_U9...50
□ How to MANAGE Your Small Computer . . .
Without Frustration. ACU’s Official Consumer Guide to
Business Computers—Vol. 1.2 ..
119.50
Method of payment:
□ Check or Purchase Order Enclosed
□ Charge to:
□ Master Card □ Visa □ American Express
Acct. No_
Expiration Date_
CD ACU’s Benchmark Report Library. In depth reviews of
36 popular computer systems—Vol. 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3.$ 175.00
Signature.
TOTAL (Please fill in) $
Charge mast be signed to be valid
ED Bill me, adding $3.00 handling (Order will be processed
immediately upon receipt of remittance.)
Please Print:
Name: _
: Title:
Company:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone Number: (
Mail to: Association of Computer Users
Q P.O. Box 9003, Boulder, Colorado 80301
Fold over and staple below.
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 210 BOULDER, CO
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
ASSOCIATION OF
COMPUTER USERS
P O Box 9003, Boulder, CO 80301
January 1982
Page 25
Why Does Everyone Hate DP? from page 17
While computers may be the center of the world in
the DP department, many users hardly realize
computers exist until something goes wrong or
they need a new system. Their world focuses—and
rightly so—on selling insurance policies, or manu¬
facturing widgets, or whatever. Users often think of
DPers’ jobs as a form of maintenance—DPers
maintain the computers the way janitors maintain
the boiler and the air conditioner.
So users aren’t impressed by technical com¬
petence. Your colleagues may refer to you in awed
tones as “COBOL Wizard” but to users you’re just
another DP snob until proven innocent. DPers can
impress users, however, by talking about computer
topics in layman’s language and by showing an
interest in their problems.
They should also understand the reality of
computerphobia. Although the word “Hate” in the
title is used tongue in cheek, in some cases that’s
not too strong a term to describe real-life
situations. Many people resent and fear the
changes brought on by computers. In their eyes,
DPers are the cause of those changes.
“For those who are committed to the status quo,
new systems will probably not be accepted
very graciously,” said computer consultant Herb
Schwartz in a recent article. “They’ll exploit every
opportunity to say what a bum system it is. You
have to watch the fearful because they can destroy
the morale of fellow workers.”
If DPers understand users’ attitudes, they can
prepare for them and even use them to advantage.
Just remember that end users are on the firing line
every day: dodging bullets from customers, from
rivals, from bosses. If you’re a DP manager, they
are likely to send a few bullets your way unless you
convince them—through better communications,
more user involvement and better education—that
you are on their side. 0
CORPORATE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Altos Computer Systems, Inc.
American Computer Group
Billings Energy Corporation
Burroughs Corporation
Capex Corporation
Citishare-Citibank N.A.
Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc.
Cromemco Incorporated
Datanetwork, Honeywell, Inc.
Datapoint Corporation
Digital Equipment Corporation
Dynabyte
Hewlett-Packard
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.
I.P. Sharp Associates, Ltd.
Litton Computer Services
Mercator Business Systems
Microdata Corporation
NEC Information Systems, Inc.
North Star Computers, Inc.
Pertec Computer Corp.
Ql Corporation
R.A.I.R., Inc.
Radio Shack Division of Tandy Corp.
Science Management Corporation
SD Systems
Smoke Signal Broadcasting
STSC, Inc.
Tandem Computers Incorp.
TeleVideo Systems, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorp.
Ultimate Corporation
Vector Graphic
Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Zenith Data Systems
Corporate Associate Members are companies supply¬
ing computing products or services who support the
Association of Computer Users through special non¬
voting membership. Interested companies are en¬
couraged to write to ACU for details.
Association of Computer Users — Chapters, Local Contacts and Special Interest Contacts
ALABAMA
Winston Brooke
Anniston — TSS Local Contact
Brooke, Freeman, Berry & McBrayer
(205) 238-1040
ALBERTA
Brian McCullough
Sherwood Park — HHS Local Contact
(403) 464-5069
AUSTRALIA
Chris Robinson
Melbourne — Local Contact
National Mutual Life Association
(03) 616-3457
CALIFORNIA
Richard Dumas
Mountain View — TSS Local Contact
Commodity Research Institute
(415) 941-4646
Durward P. Jackson
Lancaster — SCS & MCS Local Contact
(805) 942-2526
Herbert L. LaBin
Bellflower — SCS & HHS Local Contact
(213) 868-5329
Roger Levit
Santa Rosa — HHS & SCS Local Contact
(707) 538-1319
Frank Slaton
San Bernardino — TSS Local Contact
California State College
(714) 887-7293
DELAWARE
A. M. Kneitel
Wilmington — TSS, SCS, DPS and
WPS Local Contact
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
(302) 774-3866
FLORIDA
William A. Rousseau
Pompano Beach — TSS Local Contact
Alpine Engineered Products, Inc.
(305) 781-3333
J. L. VanGoethem
Miami — DPS Local Contact
METRO WASHINGTON, DC.
* Thomas M. Kurihara — WPS Chairman
ACU Representative on the
ANSI Committee X3
U.S. Dept, of Transportation
(202) 755-1771
William V. La Rocque
Washington — MCS Local Contact
National Academy of Sciences
(202) 389-6129
MICHIGAN
Tom Hunt
Cadillac — TSS Local Contact
Kysor Industrial Corp.
(616) 775-4646
* Larry G. Leslie
Kalamazoo — TSS Chairman
and Special Interest Contact for
Time-Sharing Administrators
Upjohn Company
(616) 323-6260
NETHERLANDS
Andre de La Porte, G.
Heemstede — APL Special Interest Contact;
TSS and HHS Local Contact
The Netherlands
(31)-(0)20-493625
NEW JERSEY
Richard G. Estock
Metuchen — SCS Local Contact
EDP Consultants Inc.
(201) 549-8490
Bennet Meyer
Wayne — SCS Local Contact
Singer-Kearfott
(201) 256-4000
Samuel A. Scharff
Englewood — SCS Local Contact
Consulting Engineer
(201) 569-8332
NEW YORK
Dr. Dina Bedi
Special Interest Contact for
Educational Applications
Baruch College
(212) 725-31%
Philip N. Sussman
New York City — TSS & SCS Local Contact
International Paper Company
(212) 536-7373
NEW YORK CITY CHAPTER
Executive Board:
* Aram Bedrosian
TWA
Bion Bierer
Bristol Myers
Charles Browning
Phelps Dodge
Chester Frankfeldt
American Express Co.
Alan Kornbluth
American Express
Susan McCain
Morgan Guaranty
Alan Nierenberg
Fox & Company
Arthur Schneyman
Mobil Oil
Philip Sussman
International Paper Co.
OHIO
Dennis Bender
Cincinnati — TSS Local Contact
Procter & Gamble
(513) 562-2469
Otto Hammer
Cleveland — DPS Local Contact
Ernst & Whinney
(216) 861-5000
* Howard Tureff
Cleveland — LCS Chairman
Gould, Inc. Ocean Sys. Div.
(216) 486-8300
ONTARIO
* David Wilson
Toronto — HHS Chairman, and
TSS and SCS Local Contact
Touche Ross & Co.
(416) 364-7188
PENNSYLVANIA
Dale Hummer
Pittsburgh — TSS Local Contact
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
tA 979
Melvin D. Nimer
Salt Lake City — MCS Chairman
Granite Mill Fixture Co.
(801) 521-3222
VIRGINIA
John Hudson
Danville — TSS & SCS Local Contact
Dan River Inc.
(804) 799-7305
WASHINGTON STATE
Warren Fuller
Greenbank — SCS & MCS Local Contact
Five Center Want Ads
(206) 321-5000
WISCONSIN
Anil K. Bhala
Green Bay — SCS Local Contact
L. D. Schreiber Cheese Co.
(414) 437-7601
Richard Faherty
Wausau — SCS Local Contact
Wipfli, Ullrich & Co., CPA’s
(715) 845-3111
Janice Patterson
Madison — MCS Local Contact
Wisconsin Research and
Development Center
(608) 263-4200
John J. Stewart
Wausau — SCS Local Contact
Van Ert Electric Co., Inc.
(715) 845-4308
Paul Thoppil
Milwaukee — TSS Local Contact
RTE Corporation
(414) 547-1251
LOCAL CONTACTS WANTED
Become a local contact for your
area. Your name and telephone
number will be listed on this page in
each issue of Interactive Computing
^Interactive
Computing
m,m
—
■
AP fill
ffp » i
mm
The Journal of the
Association of Computer Users
Interactive Computing
Page 28
■■■■■■■■■■
: ; 'g : I1E1® III® iMIIllllllPSI^
^Interactive
Computing
ACU Officers
Publisher
ACU Research & Education Division, Inc.
President Secretary
Hillel Segal Martin Neville
Editor
Vice President Treasurer
Hillel Segal
David Wilson Larry Leslie
Associate Editor
Jesse Berst
Section Chairmen
Bulletin Editor
Small Computer
Stuart Lipoff, Arthur D. Little , Inc .
Vic Schoenberg
Midi Computer
Contributors
Ankarath Unni, Sun Production Company
Jesse Berst
Large Computer
Robert Conrow
Howard Tureff, Gould, Inc.
Larry Dietz
Distributed Processing
Phillip Good
Aram Bedrosian, Trans World Airlines
Victor Krasan
Word Processing
Vic Schoenberg
Tom Kurihara, U.S. Dept of Transportation
Time-Sharing
Copy Editor Typesetter
Larry Leslie, Upjohn Company
Holly Arrow Paula Erez
Home & Hobbyist
Cover Artist Cartoonist
David Wilson, Touche Ross & Partners
Robert Tinney Tom Niemann
Printer
ACU Staff
Empire Press
Membership Secretary Office Manager
Peggy Liesener Harold Dunlap, Jr.
Executive Secretary Executive Director
Terry Onofrey Hillel Segal
Receptionist
Kathy Taylor
Interactive Computing is published monthly by ACU
Research and Education Division, Inc., an affiliate of
The Association of Computer Users, a non-profit
corporation, P.O. Box 9003, Boulder, CO 80301.
Telephone (303) 443-3600. Second class postage paid
at Boulder, CO 80301. Annual subscription rate
$65.00. Copyright ®1982. Reproduction without
permission is strictly prohibited.
February 1982
Page 29
Interest Areas
ACU Bulletin
ACU news plus a capsule summary of the key
items discussed in dozens of trade and technical
publications.
31
All
Sections
■ Members
mam
New & Renewing Members
A special “thank-you" to all members for
applications received during November 1981.
34
All
Sections
|ii|i|i|i imw
ACU’s First Annual Predictions
Our panel of experts takes a crack at foretelling
the future of the industry over the next year or so.
36
All
Sections
< • k
jlllut.
ACU Members Give Advice
Hindsight means 20/20 vision . . . and missed
opportunities. Foresight means acting now to take
advantage of the changes ahead.
42
1 All
Sections
M
Phototypesetting in WP
Is there a role for phototypesetting in your word
processing environment? Before answering yes or
no, turn to page . . .
44
Word Processing
M
Technology Trends in DDP
Acceleration in the growth of Distributed Data
Processing and increased user responsibilities are
trends to watch for.
47
Midi Computer
Distributed Processing
Corporate Association Members. 51
Local Contacts.... . . . ..Back Cover
Interactive Computing
Page 30
FOR ACU MEMBERS ONLY
Order these remaining 1981 Editions for less than half the original price*
ACU’s Remote Computing Directory (reg. $65.00)
and Computer Terminals Directory (reg. $30.00)
*Limited quantity available; Directories will not be updated in 1982—next edition scheduled for 1983.
Remote
Computing Directory
The most comprehensive and up-to-date guide to commercial
time-sharing services available today . . .
Sections Include:
• Financial Modeling Languages
• Interactive Data Base Systems
• Interactive Statistical Packages
• Interactive Graphics Packages
• Data Bases Available to Users
Management Sciences Programs
Interactive Accounting Systems
Engineering Programs
Specialized Application Programs
Remote Batch Services
Company Profiles
Impact Printing Terminals
Thermal Printing Terminals
Video Display Terminals
Printers
Graphics Terminals
Remote Batch Terminals
Intelligent Terminals
Modems & Acoustic Couplers
Each
Directory
comes in a
handsome
ACU binder
Computer
Terminals Directory
Includes photos, pricing and full-page descriptions of
150 terminals, modems and acoustic couplers.
Survey Response —as we go to press, we’ve received about 150 responses to the survey
questionnaire concerning the new monthly format for our association publications. Thanks for your
response! We were very pleased with an overwhelmingly favorable reaction to the combination of
all section newsletters and the bulletin into our expanded Interactive Computing. Roughly 70
percent of readers gave the publication’s first issue either an excellent or very good rating.
The reaction to our question about advertising was very strong. Nearly two thirds said “no
advertising.” What’s more, many were quite emphatic about it. . . some even saying they’d cancel
their membership if we did such a thing! We hear you ... no ads in ACU publications. This, of
course, has been our philosophy in the past—that our consumerist orientation requires objectivity
above all else—and it appears that most members want to keep it that way.
The suggestions from members of topics they’d like to see covered in future issues were also
very helpful. By far the most widely repeated suggestion was for more reviews and analyses of
software for specific applications. Also receiving strong support was the topic of data
communications and local networking. Office automation was the next topic most frequently
mentioned, followed by requests for articles of a more technical nature, and reviews of the best
books in the field. Many other areas received more than one mention, and altogether about three
dozen different suggestions were made ... all very valuable, and for these ideas we thank you.
One idea deserves further comment, since it involves users directly. This is the suggestion that
we begin a reader’s forum, in which users can pass along the benefit of their experiences to other
users. What problems have you run into, and how did you find the solutions? Do you have any
specific advice, or interesting anecdotes? One of the best things about a user association is that we
can benefit from each other’s background and knowledge. If this idea appeals to you, please write
us . . . we’d like to hear your story.
There were a number of requests for more benchmark reviews of computers, so we’re pleased
to announce the beginning of a regular column in Interactive Computing devoted to our benchmark
efforts. Every month, starting with our April, 1982 issue, we’ll carry a summary evaluation on
another specific system. In April, we’ll start off with the popular Wang 2200SVP small computer. In
issues to come we’ll cover other selected systems from ACU’s library of BENCHMARK
REPORTS. Of course, the complete reports contain much more detail on the systems, as well as
the results of additional tests ... so we still suggest that you subscribe to the full series if you are
seriously considering the purchase of a small system.
Also in April, I’ll begin a regular column that will cover a variety of DP management topics. It
should be of special interest to those of you using computers or office automation equipment in the
business world.
Industry Update
Page 32
Ethernet Strategy to Fail,
Says Consulting Firm
IBM to Remove Suspected
Carcinogen from Printers,
Copiers
Apple to End Mail Order Sales
NonStop Computer To Get
Competition
Terminals Not All Equal,
Study Shows
Xerox’s highly-publicized Ethernet, a local-area network for office products, is
headed for a disastrous failure that will pull down the firm’s entire office
computer line. That’s the conclusion reached by Strategic, Inc., a San Jose
market research firm. The problem, says Strategic, is that the baseband
approach used by Ethernet has too little capacity to serve the needs of future
applications. Broadband systems, such as Wangnet, offer greater channel
space which can be used for video, voice, and large-scale data transmission.
Xerox responded to the dire prediction with a statement saying that customer
satisfaction and order backlogs give it confidence in its office strategy.
While still denying that the chemical trinitrofluorenone (TNF) poses any risk,
IBM plans to remove the substance from its products and retrofit existing
customer installations. TNF became highly controversial last year (see Nov. ’80
Bulletin) when it was revealed that IBM had known of the chemical’s possible
carcinogenic nature all along, yet still used it in the photoconductors of its 3800
laser printer, 3896 tape-to-document converter, and some copiers. Now, the
firm has come up with a replacement. Though claiming the change is being
made for “business and technical reasons,”, an IBM spokesman notes that “this
conversion should alleviate any remaining concerns.”
Apple dealers have long been undercut by low-priced mail order sales . . . but
not any more, if Apple gets its way. Authorized dealers are being required to
sign an agreement promising not to sell Apple products through the mail; those
that refuse will lose their dealerships. “Mail order sales are neither suited to
providing consumer education nor structured to provide the consumer
satisfaction that has become associated with the Apple name,” said A.C.
Markkula, Jr., the company’s president. Some dealers are furious, though,
alleging restraint of trade, and the matter is now in a federal court.
Until now, Tandem Computers has had the market for non-interruptable
computers practically to itself, with the firm’s NonStop model virtually one of a
kind. Now Tandem is going to have competition from Stratus Computers, a
one-year-old Natick, Mass. firm. The newly-announced Stratus/32 features
hardware-based redundancy, which the firm says makes conversion of software
from other types of computers easier than the Tandem approach. DEC has
also disclosed its intention to offer a redundant VAX computer, but details have
not yet been revealed.
Datapro Research recently surveyed users to find out which display terminals
are the most likeable. Here are the results—averaged to include all factors.
Where no model or series number is indicated, the result is a combination of all
the firm’s alphanumeric display terminals. The rating is on a scale of 1 to 4, with
4 as the best possible score.
HP 2600
4.0
Memorex
3.3
Tektronix
3.8
Four Phase
3.2
DEC VT-100
3.8
ITT Courier
3.2
IBM
3.6
Burroughs
3.0
Beehive
3.5
Data General
3.0
Datamation
3.5
Harris
3.0
Teletype 40
3.5
MDS Trivex
3.0
ADDS
3.3
Telex 270
3.0
Heath
3.3
Univac
2.8
Honeywell VIP
3.3
Hazeltine
2.3
Lear Siegler
3.3
New Product News
Page 33
W
Texas Instruments
Computer Systems Division
P.0. Box 2909
Austin, TX 78769
(512) 250-7111
Altos Computer Systems
2360 Bering Dr.
San Jose, CA 95131
(408) 946-6700
Apple Computer Inc.
10260 Bandley Dr.
Cupertino, CA 95014
w (408) 996-1010
A new series of small computers targeted at first-time users has been
unveiled by Texas Instruments. The Business System 200 family’s first
models are four systems, the 220, 240, 250 and 251. All are single-user
desktop designs with a 12" display terminal, detachable keyboard, and
separate processor/disk drive cabinet. Each incorporates 64,000 characters of
memory; the models differ in disk storage capacity, with the Model 220
using a pair of double-sided, double-density 5" diskettes for a total of 1.2
million characters storage. The other models feature up to 11.2 million
character Winchester hard disks. Applications software written in Cobol
offers a range of accounting functions and word processing. Prices start at
$6,200. TI says shipments are now beginning.
Altos Computer Systems has introduced a new group of powerful 16-bit
microcomputers which offer a choice of widely used operating systems. The
ACS8600 series computers can run under CP/M-86, MP/M-86, Oasis-16, or
Xenix. Xenix is a microprocessor version of Unix (trademark Bell Labs)
developed by Microsoft. The systems support up to eight users, and have
error-correcting memory of 128,000 to one million characters. Both floppy
and hard disk storage are offered. Languages include Basic, Cobol, Pascal,
and Fortran; the Xenix operating system includes a C language compiler,
text editing, typesetting, and other features. Prices start at $8,990 for floppy-
based systems and $12,990 for a system with 10-million character hard disk.
Shipments began in January, says Altos.
A new version of the Apple III personal computer is now ready, featuring
more memory and an optional hard disk. Designed to correct the
manufacturing and reliability problems which plagued the original version
when it was released and then withdrawn last year, the new Apple III is said
to be up to speed. It supports up to 256,000 characters of memory (twice
the capacity of the previous version), and an optional hard disk has 5 million
characters of storage. A system with 128K memory, Visicalc, monitor and
Business Basic is priced at only $4,190; the hard disk is $3,499 and the
upgrade to 256K memory costs $800.
Texas Instruments’ new Business System 200
The new Apple III, with optional hard disk
Page 34
ACU’s New and Renewing Members
“Thank-you!” to all renewing members for your continuing support, and
welcome aboard to new members just signing up. The 1st below shows
renewals and new members along with the company they’re affiliated with, if
one was indicated. The asterisks after the names of renewing members
represent the number of years they have been a member.
Applications Received
in November 1981
E. A. Abrahamson ****
Joel Abramowitz ***
U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y.
Richard L. Accurso *
Canada Dry Corporation
Robert B. Adams **
Buckeye Pipeline Company
Frederick Allard **
Health-Tex Inc.
Rick Alzati **
Florida Power & Light
Arsenio J. Amores **
Space Age Computer Sys., Inc.
Edward F. Anderson *****
Singer Company
Howell Anderson ***
Churchill Weavers, Inc.
M. J. Anderson **
Astrocom Corporation
W. C. Anderson ***
Clairol, Inc.
Paul M. Andrade
Magnex Corp.
James A. Anzalone **
Arthur Young & Company
Jose Aragones
KTC Sistemas, C.A.
Eloy Areu **
University of Maryland
Eileen Armstrong **
Mony
Murray Armstrong *
Koffler Stores Ltd.
J. Lowell Ashby *
Mid American Control Corp.
Michael N. Ashman
Thomas F. Ashworth **
Thomas F. Ashworth, C.P.A.
Louis Atkin *
Genesee Scrap & Tin Baling
David Awerbuch **
Concourse Computing Consult.
F. David Ayers **
Ambicare, Inc.
Mark Baer ***
Hewlett-Packard
Joseph A. Bailey, Jr.
Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Robert L. Bailey
U. C. Berkely
Dale E. Bailly *****
Heublein, Inc.
Thomas Baker
Arthur Johnson Reg. High Sch.
Peter Ballard ***
Abell Communications
William G. Banes *
Banes Corp.
Patricia Baranowski **
Township High School
Joseph G. Barmess, Jr. ***
Harco Corporation
Frank Bartolone ***
Economy Engineering Company
Willard C. Bass **
G.D. Searle & Co.
T. C. Bates II **
Information Management Group
John Beachy
Cooper Market, Ltd.
Larry E. Berg ***
Indiana Farm Bureau Coop Assoc.
R. W. Berg **
Zimmer-USA
Ray Bergendoff *****
IBIS Corporation
Thomas W. Berken, ***
Int’l Graphics Div.
Moore Bus.
Steve Berry **
Shelton Berry
Robert W. Beth **
Matrix Computer Corp.
Noel E. Bethe *******
FMC Corp., Ope Div.
Daniel E. Bevington **
First Interstate Serv. Co.
Jim Biernacki
Microdata Corp.
K. W. Bitticks ***
Delphi Systems, Inc.
Roger W. Blakeney *
Guild Wineries & Distilleries
Norman L. Bloch *
Bloch & Bloch Ltd.
Jerry Block **
Block, Good & Gagerman
Floyd Bloom ***
The Simco Company, Inc.
Warren Blossom
Microdata Corp.
Kenneth G. Bobis **
Kenwood Data Assoc., Inc.
Gilbert W. Boettcher **
Control Data Corp.
Roger Bonjour
Yorkshire Trust Company
John Bonne
Microdata Corporation
Thomas R. Bookless ****
Howmet Aluminum Corp.
Carl Bowers **
Larry F. Bowman **
Plante & Moran
James Bowyer
Associates Corp. of N. America
Edward Boyes
Hartley Comp. Appl. Pty. Ltd.
Gary Brannan ******
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Donald F. Breidt
Bonded Services
Winston Brooke ***
Brooke & Freeman
C. Bennett Brown, Jr. ***
Smith, Batchelder & Rugg
LeRoy W. Brown **
Ruan Transport Corp.
Ray Brown **
Conva Indemmity Co.
Thomas D. Brown **
Shankman Laboratories
W. L. Brown
Porter & Chester Institute
Charles Browning *******
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Peter E. Brumme *****
Code & Code, Inc.
Howard Brummer **
Melvin Simon & Assoc., Inc.
Sandra Bryant ***
Transilwrap Company, Inc.
Bruce Burns *
Remak Industries
L. R. Buschman *****
Me Auto
John F. Bush
Indiana State University
Ashok Butani
Ovex Business Systems Ltd.
Edward C. Butler *
Robb, Peck, Moccooey & Co., Inc.
Peter D. Callaghan **
General Foods, Inc.
John E. Callahan ******
Borden, Inc.
Allan Cameron *
NBTEL
John H. Campbell III ***
ADP Network Services
Richard G. Cannon ***
The Church of Jesus Christ
John J. Cargille **
R.P. Cargille Laboratories
Faith Carlson
Pioneer Products, Inc.
Gary Carlson **
American Natural Service Co.
Thomas Carper **
Petroleum Prod. Corp.
Shirley Carr *
City of Boston
Laurence Carter ******
Del Monte Corporation
Gene Chapin *
Ronald W. Chapman **
City of Dearborn
Lovell Chase
Microdata Corporation
Henry Chiu
Dennis Chorney ***
Standard Perforating
John A. Churylo *
Daniels & Associates, Inc.
Diane W. Cikoski *
Burroughs Corporation
Samuel Cirelli **
Littlewood, Shain & Company
John Clairborne III *******
John Nuveen & Co., Inc.
T. Clark **
Wardcop Limited
Cassius M. Clay *****
C.M. Clay
Robert B. Clere **
Hartford Insurance Group
J. R. Cobb ***
Phillips Petroleum Company
Don D. Coehring **
Derrick Service Internat’l
Sam Cohen
Tab Products Company
Howard A. Cohn ***
Universal Television Co.
Robert H. Cole **
Permian Business Group
Phillip Coleman **
United Home Care Service, Inc.
D. P. Colin *
BL Systems Ltd.
Robert A. Colyer **
Lamoni Municipal Utilities
Frank Contigiani *
Vertex Systems, Inc.
Virginia L. Coolidge ***
Automated Decisions Corp.
S. Franklin Coron ***
Dyson Shipping Co., Inc.
Angela Corrieri
AMC Enterprises
Eddie Cortes **
Abbott Chemicals, Inc.
A M. Cosentino *
Microdata Corporation
Wesley H. Cowley *
Mercury Motor Express
Connell G. Craig *****
Economic Sciences Corp.
Daza Craig **
G.E. Info. Services Co.
John V. Croul ***
Behr Process Corporation
Roger Cruon *
L’Amiral
James Cupec *******
First Nat’l Bank of Chicago
David Curbo
Cannon & Company
R. H. Curran ***
Gulf Oil Corporation
Eugene Dailey **
Amcom Data Processing
Pappyn Daniel **
PVBA Datakor
Richard Davidson ***
State St. Bank & Trust
Mariam H. Davis *
Steres, Alpert & Came
Robert E. Davis ***
Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R.
M. J. DeFrance
Chase Manhattan Bank
Michael R. Denault **
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
Jo De Simone ***
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.
William L. Dexter **
Union Oil Company of Calif.
David J. Diamond **
Data Products, Inc.
Joseph A. DiCioccio *
C.S.I.B.M.
Ben Dobson
Affiliated Bankshares of Colo.
Robert Dodge **
A. Johnson & Co., Inc.
Paul Doering *
Cassis Corp.
James J. Doody
Sweetheart Cup Corporation
Kermit H. Dotson, Jr.
Union Carbide Corp.
William Dougherty **
Conard-Pyle Co.
John T. Driscoll *
Interstate United Corporation
Sally J. Dudley
Hewlett-Packard
Alton Duncan *
Robinson Grimes & Co.
Bill Dunigan
First Interstate Bank of AZ
William Dunn *
Leader Federal Savings & Loan
W. A. Dusenbury
Speer Cushion Co.
Angus M. Duthie **
F. H. Prince Securities Corp.
Page 35
Ann E. Dzuna **
Gulf Oil Corp.
S. V. Edens ***
Telefile Computer Products
Lew Egol ***
Nuclear Associates
Lynne Elliott **
Ryder Scott Co.
Arthur D. Ellis **
Data Equipment Sales Co.
A. J. Ellman *
Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd.
Raymond A. Elseth ***
Fiat — Allis CMl
Jan Engel **
Stegman & Assoc.
Birgul Erengil *
Integrated Planning, Inc.
William M. Erickson **
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Stephen Evans *
Alexander Grant & Co.
John P. Fairman *
Kalama Chemical Inc.
John R. Fall ***
Computer Software Develop. Co.
Edward N. Fares **
E. F. Farrell ***
RCA — Computer Services
Deborah V. Faust **
Metal Masters Foodservice Inc.
Annette Fern **
SPSS, Inc.
Paul Few ***
Nebraskans for Public Tel.
Robert Fidelman **
Advanced Control Systems
Robert E. Fidoten
PPG Industries, Inc.
Gerald J. Fisher *
Reichert, Fisher & Co.
Gerald Fleming
Microdata Corporation
Gary Flood *
Church of Jesus Christ
C. L. Forbes **
U.S. General Accounting Office
Larry K. Ford
Lake Ronel Oil Co.
Raymond F. Forthuber **
PHH Group, Inc.
Susan Foster
OCIS — Temple University
Tom Foster **
Main Hurdman
P. J. Fox **
Exxon Corporation
Harry J. Foxwell *
American Chemical Society
Joe Fredican ****
The Flintkote Company
Jerome Friedman **
Sossner Steel Stamps, Inc.
Richard Frischkorn **
Alan Frisoni ***
Frisoni & Assoc.
Alan Frotman ***
American Inst, of CPA’s
Donald Fuller *
Microdata Corporation
Donald D. Fusaro *
Informative Data Facilities
Joseph I. Gaabelein *
Coopers & Lybrand
M. J. Gallagher
Quarto Software BV
Jose Joaquin Garcia-Luna
, University of Hawaii
Jean Garfield ****
Northewestern Mutual Life Ins.
John C. Gargaro
Old Stone Bank
William Garrett **
Crawford & Co.
Tom Garske **
Charles Bailly & Co.
J. W. Gates ***
Richardson Merrell, Inc.
Alex Gelbman **
Coulter Electronics, Inc.
Donald Genasci **
Genris Computer Service
John Geoffroy
Construction Data Control, Inc.
Ralph Giannato *****
Polaroid Corp.
L. A. Giardi ***
Universal Design, Inc.
Lenn Gilbert *
EC Industries, Inc.
George A. Gillette **
Washington Nat’l Ins. Co.
Gary D. Ginter **
Chicago Res. & Trading
J. F. Gloudeman ***
MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
George Tiu Go
Integrated Computer Systems
James Goard **
Vancouver Community College
Alan L. Goldberg ***
Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Richard J. Golden **
G.D.D.S., Inc.
Walter E. Golder **
Ann L. Goldman **
Digital Equipment Corp.
John N. Gonzales **
G.E. Information Services Co.
Jorge Diaz Gonzalez
J/D Systems
Jo Goodson *
Insilco
Maureen Gorman **
Arthur Anderson & Co.
LeRoy Cecil Grainger *
Grainger, Realtors
Mark D. Grant **
Aronson, Greene, Fisher
Barry Greebel
Continental Data Systems
Ralph Green, Jr. *******
Martin Marietta Corp.
James K. Greiner *
Accountech Systems, Inc.
Rand Groh *
Security Pacific National Bank
Thomas R. Gross
Logicon, Inc.
Norman Grund *
Keramos Inc.
James S. Guastavino ****
Doubleday and Company
Joan Gucciardi **
Emjay Corporation
Roger Haessig ***
Gilpin Inc.
R. W. Halliburton ***
Bank of Oklahoma
Lawrence S. Halpern **
Halpern, Schnidman & Co.
S. Thomas Hamilton, Jr.
Hamilton & Company, Chartered
Robert J. Hammer
Delphi Systems, Inc.
Paul T. Hansen *
Hayes/Hill
Daniel J. Hanssel
KVS Information Systems, Inc.
John Harkness ***
District Trust Co.
Merle Harnish
Me/co
Vicky R. Harrington
Jeffries, West & Co.
Vern Hart
Microdata Corporation
Wayne A. Hastings *
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc.
Joseph E. Hayes ***
University of Colorado
Kirk Hayes **
Hayes Manufacturing Co.
Charles R. Haywood ****
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Jack Hazel *
Strathmore
William Heap ***
NW Bank of Minneapolis
Kurt Heckscher **
Fast Automated Systems, Inc.
Larry Heimrath **
Marsh And McLennan
Robert L. Herbert **
Hausser & Taylor
J. R. Herbster **
Exxon Company, USA
Herbert J. Hering
Great Lakes Fruit & Produce Inc.
Jorge Herrera **
Compusoft Systems
Charles W. Hewitt ***
Avco Computer Services
J. A. Heyser ***
American Telephone & Telegraph
Jim Hightower ***
Calif. State Univ. & Colleges
John Hill ***
Wisconsin Credit Union League
Robert C. Hill *
James B. Himler
Mai/Sorbus Service Div.
Richard Ho
Syska & Hennessy
Joe Hodge *****
Hospital Corp of America
Jerome Hoffman *
Forbes, Inc.
Peter Hoguet *
Gayle Holman ***
Rubbermaid, Inc.
Robert F. Holtje
Source Telecomputing
J. V. Horsting ***
Profit By Air, Inc.
Alan P. Houck ***
Minihan, Kernutt, Stokes & Co.
Ivan Hrabowsky *
Praxiscomputer, Inc.
Paul Huffington **
Winton Evaluators Ltd.
John Hughes *
Bell Laboratories
Stephen R. Hunter
The Traffic Service Corp.
Robert Huston **
Litton Melonics Info. Center
Portia Isaacson **
Future Computing, Inc.
T. W. Jackson
Nordahl & Associates
Raymond Jacques *****
General Mills
Reynold Jarecki **
Franciscan Retreat
Nathan S. Jarnigan, Jr. ***
First American Title Insurance
John Jay *
Remington Arms Co., Inc.
Warren S. Jeffs
Jeffs & Jeffs
Pete Jenkins *
Pittsburgh & New England Truck.
Carl Jeremias *
Microdata Corp.
Jan Arild Johansen *
Ola Tandberg Elektro
Brian K. Johnson *
McMahon Hartman Amundson & Co.
Michael C. Johnson
Systems Support, Inc.
Steve Johnson **
Johnson’s Handy Rent All Inc.
H. Walter Johnson ***
Raychem Corp.
Dennis Paul Jones **
Beatrice Foods, Co.
Norm Jones **
Morton F. Plant Hospital
R. R. Jordan **
Sargent Ind. Sweeney Div.
Gerald P. Joyce *
Standard Federal Savings
Michel Kadish ***
Compal Computer Systems
Jack Kajfasz *****
Moore Business Systems
C. E. Kanneen *****
FMC Corp.
Ernest Kaplan *
Ernest Kaplan & Co.
Geozge Kargilis *
Warren Consolidated Schools
S. L. Karp **
Raytheon Co.
John D. Karraker **
General Electric Co.
Alex W. Kask *******
Ernst & Whinney
Rene M. Katto ***
Theo H. Davies
S. David Kaufman ***
SDK Medical Computer Services
Steven B. Kay **
Calma
Cyril Kearney ***
Touche Ross & Company
Alan F. Kehr ***
Manufacturers Equipment Co.
Mark Kelly
Office Automation Systems
Richard T. Kelley
American Software Co.
Marian Kennedy **
Good Impressions
Gerlad Kepner, Jr. ***
Arthur Young & Co.
Karl G. King ***
Crowe, Chizek and Co.
Robert E. King ***
Holiday Inns, Inc.
I. Kirsteins ****
Imasco Assoc. Products Ltd.
Esther J. Klakamp **
Millereek Township Supervisors
John A. Kneisly ***
Management Foresight, Inc.
John Knight *
Heidelberg Eastern, Inc.
Philip W. Knights **
Makoto Kohno **
NEC Systems Laboratory
Jerry L. Koory *
The Rand Corporation
Alan Kornbluth *****
American Express
Bruce Kraemer ***
Foxboro Company
Arnold A. Kraft
Digital Equipment Corp.
Sidney W. Kraft *******
Boeing Computer Services Co.
Clint Kreitner
American Info Systems, Inc.
We’ve run out of room!
Thanks again to all new and
renewing members from
November 1981. Look for the
continuation of this list in our
next issue.
Interactive Computing
Page 36
ACU’s First Annual Predictions Issue
by Jesse Berst
The computer industry is constantly changing. That’s what makes it so exciting. That’s also what makes it
so hard to master. As soon as you make one adjustment, along comes a development that threatens to
change everything again.
Those new developments can swamp you if you are not prepared. When you are busy trying to keep your
head above water, it’s easy not to notice the next wave coming in. At one time or another, most of us have
gotten so far behind that we found ourselves reacting instead of acting.
To help ACU members who don’t have the time to keep as up-to-date as they should, we assembled a
panel of knowledgeable ACU members to give us their opinions. Most of them act as local contacts in their
area of expertise. Associate Editor Jesse Berst asked these experts what ACU members should expect
during the next 12 months, and they predicted that the following developments will make waves during
1982.
Communications Will Be A Crucial Issue
Most of the panel members interviewed for this
article agreed that communications will be one of
1982’s biggest buzzwords. “The 1980s will be
dominated by communications, regardless of what
type or size computer you use,” predicts ACU
Board Member Ankarath Unni. “Communications
will increase in prominence because it leads to
everything else.”
Indeed, many of the predictions made in this article
involve communication between computers. “It’s
certainly not too early to worry about communi¬
cations,” said Richard Accurso. “For example,
here at Canada Dry Corporation we are trying to
establish a formal network of minicomputers
between various subsidiary companies. That cre¬
ates many communications problems. And the
further we get in, the more we realize that word
processing has to fit in, too, or we are going to lose
control. DP and WP have to transfer data back
and forth—they have to be able to talk to each
other.”
Networking and Distributed Processing
Will Expand
Distributed processing will continue to grow in
importance. Regional offices distant from corporate
headquarters will find it cheaper and more
convenient to write programs for inexpensive
computers in their workplace. They will still,
however, need access to the data stored in the
central computer.
“Distributed processing will go a lot further than
people think,” Accurso said. “Networks are here
today, but not too many people are using them
except for remote job entry and a small amount of
independent processing. But networks will soon go
beyond just the sharing of data bases. For
“It’s not too soon to start
integrating the office.”
instance, we are experimenting with downloading
information from a data base onto a standalone
microcomputer that then produces graphics. Our
analysts can use the micro to manipulate the data.”
Ultimately, companies will tie all of their gear
together: mainframes, minis, terminals, word pro¬
cessors, intelligent copiers, and so on. Many of
them will begin this task in 1982.
SNA Will Become The De Facto Standard
Seventy percent of installed corporate computers
February 1982
Page 37
are IBM or IBM compatible. No wonder, then, that
IBM’s Systems Network Architecture (SNA) is
beginning to look like the de facto communications
standard. Wang, Data General, Digital and other
major minicomputer manufacturers have already
announced their intention to support it.
“IBM is going to set the de facto standard,” said
Arno Laur. “They’ve done it in the past, and who
else could do it now? Who else could put the
capital investment into it? The standards com¬
mittees can’t get untracked from their own
bureaucracy, so IBM will step in and become the
standard.”
The unanimous conclusion of our panel: No one
has the clout to unseat IBM. SNA will become an
industry standard.
Interactive Computing
Page 38
Office Automation: From Theory To Practice
“We think that it is not too soon to integrate the
office,” said Richard Jarcik, whose firm handles
third-party insurance administration (similar to
Blue Cross). “In the past year, we put all the
relevant information on the mainframe and out to
the users’ desks. We automated all the forms. It
went very well and it has changed everything—the
way users work, the way executives get the
information they need and the way management
thinks of automation.”
THE ACU PANEL
Paul Abrahams
Arno Laur
Consulting Computer Scientist
Manager of Systems
Deerfield, MA
and Programming
Member, WP Section
Maritime Overseas Corp.
Richard Accurso
New York, NY
Local Contact, SC Section
Director of Corporate MIS
Canada Dry Corporation
Brian McCullough
New York, NY
Field Engineer
Member, WP & DP Sections
NCR Corporation
Aram Bedrosian
Canada
Local Contact, HH Section
Mgr., Systems & Programming
TWA - New York, NY
Melvin D. Nimer
Chairman, DP Section
Controller
Richard Dumas
Granite Mill Fixture Co.
Salt Lake City, UT
Treasurer
Local Contact, SC Section
Commodity Research Institute
Mountain View, CA
Philip Sussman
Local Contact, TS Section
Project Manager,
Robert Jarcik
Business Development
International Paper Co.
Manager, Dept, of Information
New York, NY
Resources Management
Local Contact, TS & SC
Boon Chapman - Austin, TX
Sections
Local Contact, LC Section
Otto Hammer
Ankarath Unni
Mgr., Financial Systems
Group Director
and MIS
Ernst & Whinney
Sun Production Co.
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Local Contact, DP Section
Chairman, MC Section
William LaRocque
D. T. Wu
Director, Automation Services
Research Fellow
National Academy of Sciences
DuPont De Nemours & Co.
Washington, D.C.
Philadelphia, PA
Local Contact, MC Section
Local Contact, TS Section
“Now we have absorbed the word processing
function and, over the next 18 months, we want to
tie the office together. Some things are still too
expensive—automatic scheduling, and mainframe
access by field representatives calling in from the
customer’s office, for example. But we are looking
seriously at electronic mail, electronic reminder
files, personal computers for forecasting that can
access the mainframe for the data they need, and
more.”
Ankarath Unni reported that Sun Production
Company is also planning for office automation
during the next two years. As he sees it, the
project will involve the convergence of office
functions with data processing, networking, and
communications. Unni’s company wants an auto¬
mated office that will make it easier for users to get
to the data they need. The goal is not just to speed
up clerical tasks, but to help managers make
decisions.
Word Processors Will Become
More Sophisticated
Today, most word processors—whether dedicated
units or small computers with WP software—
handle only basic functions. Within the next year
or two, however, some companies may bring out
machines incorporating advanced features current¬
ly found only on large computer systems.
The new breed of word processors will have all
functions integrated into a single system. For
instance, you will be able to receive data from a
remote source, do VisiCalc-type calculations, turn
those figures into a chart, type a letter incorpo¬
rating the chart, sort your mailing list for the names
you want, send the letter electronically to some
names, then print out the letter and chart and send
it through the USPS to other names—all at the
same terminal without reentering information.
And the new word processors will incorporate
some new functions. “Word processing capabilities
will become more sophisticated due to technology
transfer from academia into commercial products,”
February 1982
Page 39
Big Changes In
Personal Computers
Falling prices and new names at the
top of the heap—these are two of the
changes you can expect in the
personal computer market. A recent
study by SRI International, a Cali¬
fornia-based research firm, predicted
that prices will continue to drop
dramatically. By 1985, the study said,
computer power equivalent to an
Apple II will fall to $500 (in today’s
dollars).
Up to now, there has been little real
competition and the market has been
forgiving. That’s changing fast with the
entry of the big guns from the large
computer and office equipment fields.
The hot competition is forcing com¬
panies to reassess their products and
fine tune their strategies. Those that
guess wrong may find themselves out
of the running, even if they are thriving
now.
Indeed, a new set of industry leaders
is likely by 1985. Currently, Apple is
ahead with about 23 percent of the
market (measured in dollar sales),
followed by Tandy with 20 percent and
Commodore with 10 percent. But
nearly everyone agrees that IBM’s new
Personal Computer is going to grab a
big slice of the pie.
In addition to IBM, SRI predicted
that the industry leaders of 1985 will
include another American manufac¬
turer (Xerox or possibly Burroughs), a
major American retailer (Radio Shack
with Sears as the dark horse), and two
Japanese suppliers (Matsushita and
NEC, with Sony as a dark horse).
- r
PI
O
Si
— i
ERS
OMf
me:
ON A
>UTI
S
vL
ER
y
y
D
("
ollar
n billic
Sales
>ns)
]/
9
j
A
Jnit S
in mill
>ales
ions)
J
9
/
— ■ 1
Projec
1
ted
1
79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85
An Exploding Market For
Personal Computers
Everyone agrees that personal com¬
puter sales will boom over the next few
years. The arguments start, however,
when you ask who will be doing the
buying. Some manufacturers are bet¬
ting on small businessmen. Others are
trying to zero in on specific target
groups, such as engineers. Still others
are aiming for corporate managers and
executives.
A few personal computer makers are
gambling on a broad home market that
doesn’t yet exist. Though companies
like Texas instruments, Mattel and
Atari have spend millions trying to get
into the home, they have not yet been
able to lure buyers in big numbers.
Most observers predict that the home
market won’t take off until the price for
a complete system drops below $1,000,
from its current $2-4,000 level. That
won’t happen, say the experts, until
1985 or so.
A Worsening People Shortage
The booming computer industry has
one big bottleneck: a shortage of
qualified people to program and
operate the machines. According to
observers, the crisis will worsen over
the next few years. The Labor Depart¬
ment predicts that demand for com¬
puter programmers will double by
1990. Consider these projections by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
growth in employment from 1978 to
1990: Data processing machine me¬
chanics, 148-173%; systems analysts,
108-123%; computer operators, 88-
101 %.
Don’t expect much help from the
nation’s colleges. Their output of
qualified graduates is running an
estimated two thirds below demand.
The only hope seems to be “friendly”
languages and database management
systems that allow users to do a
portion of their own programming.
Until these productivity aids have been
further refined, the struggle to find and
retain DP personnel will continue to
intensify.
predicted Paul Abrahams. “The Xerox Star is a
glimmer of what we can expect, and such
capabilities will come down in price.”
“We will see terminals with bit-mapped displays
that can show different type fonts,” he continued,
“more sophisticated text formatting, complex
cross-referencing and more creative use of screens.
I know of one system, for example, that is
developing a split screen approach that allows you
to see what the text will look like on the page at
the same time you can see the format commands
for making changes.”
continued . . .
Interactive Computing
Page 40
The Demise Of The Dedicated
Word Processor?
At a recent conference, a noted
industry observer predicted the end of
the single-use, standalone word pro¬
cessor. Robert Wickham, vice presi¬
dent of marketing for Vector Graphic,
said that the changing needs of office
information processing will result in
more shared systems and multi¬
purpose microcomputers.
Such equipment might perform
word processing, financial planning
and graphics—“all at the same time.
Word processing might also be com¬
bined with database management,
accounting, electronic mail, and so on.
Today, it costs more to buy a
dedicated word processor than it does
to purchase a multi-use microcom¬
puter with word processing software.
Often the diference is as much as
$5,000. In their rush to get in on the
small computer boom, some com¬
panies are undercutting their own
products. Xerox, IBM, and Lanier, for
instance, have introduced microcom¬
puters with word processing capabi¬
lities that sell for thousands of dollars
less than dedicated word processors
available through other divisions of
their companies.
Multi-use micros do have a few
drawbacks. Most of them do not offer
the high quality training, the ease of
use or the hand-holding support that
come with dedicated machines. Still,
that situation is improving. Meanwhile,
more and more word processing
buyers are realizing that microcom¬
puters give them more versatility for
less money.
Tough Times Ahead For The
Minicomputer Pioneers
The onslaught of inexpensive small
computers is jeopardizing the profit¬
ability of some of the minicomputer
manufacturers who pioneered the
small business market in the 1970s.
Troubled Data General has been
plagued by lawsuits from dealers and
an exodus of management talent.
Meanwhile, Quantel’s growth has
slowed sharply, Basic Four’s income
fell 39 percent last year, and Microdata
recorded a loss of $8 million.
The challenge comes largely from
upstart microcomputer makers who
are growing up, and from several
trends. The mini makers’ traditional
market—systems costing from $40,000
to $80,000—is becoming saturated.
Moreover, many customers are now
choosing to automate in a piecemeal
fashion. They begin with a few
programs on a small computer, then
add more software and hardware as
needed.
On top of that, falling prices have
made traditional sales channels too
expensive. Direct sales forces and
third party systems houses are too
costly for systems selling for less than
$20,000. Some of the mini makers have
responded by courting independent
retailers or opening their own stores or
showrooms. And some have added
their own low cost systems.
Will their efforts succeed in keeping
them afloat? “If management does its
homework, some of these companies
will come through this challenge,”
predicted Morgan Stanley principal
Ulric Weil in Business Week Magazine.
“The others will just go the way of all
flesh.”
1,500
1,000
500
o
BUSINESS USE OF VIDEOTEX
3,000
Projected revenues from
2,500 [-electronic information
retrieval services
2,000 _(j n millions of dollars).
i i ■
ilia
l I l I l l
’80 | 81 '82 ’83 ’84 ’85
Estimated
A Growing Demand For Business
Oriented Videotex
The home market for videotex-
interactive services by cable tele¬
vision—gets a lot of press, but it is only
beginning to emerge. Although pros¬
pects are looking up, it has been a
losing proposition so far. Home video¬
tex is unlikely to be a major success
before 1985, because the services are
still too expensive for most consumers.
Corporate users, however, will pay a
premium to get data on a more timely
basis. They have been spending at an
accelerating rate to obtain electron¬
ically stored information. There are
already more than eight hundred on¬
line services doing an estimated $1
billion, and revenues are growing 30
percent per year.
Some of the most popular data
bases—the New York Times Infor¬
mation Bank and the Dow Jones News
Retrieval Service, for instance—largely
repackage and index what is already
available in printed form. Other ser¬
vices, including most of the more
recent entries, were created for speci¬
alized markets. The trend toward
specialized, business-oriented infor¬
mation will continue over the next few
years. For example, CompuServe and
Source Telecomputing, which origin¬
ally aimed their on-line data bases at
hobbyists, are now pushing their
services for businessmen and pro¬
fessionals.
February 1982
Page 41
Small Computers Will Replace Time-Sharing
and Large Computers for Certain Applications
“Many people are not keeping up with the
developments in the small computer world,” said
Richard Dumas. “Microcomputers are on the
threshold of replacing time sharing for many
functions. There is lots of software out there and it
is increasingly sophisticated. You can use a small
computer as an intelligent terminal or as a
standalone machine.”
“There are some people who will continue to
require the power of a large computer, but many
can now get by with a small computer,” agreed
D. T. Wu. “They can do a lot of things a large
computer can do. True, they have limitations—a
micro may take five minutes to do what a large
computer can accomplish in five seconds. But with
costs coming down, microcomputers will have a
tremendous impact.”
“Small computers are the wave of the future,” Otto
Hammer predicted. “At Ernst & Whinney, we are
already able to use Radio Shack and Apple
computers off-the-shelf. Many of our offices are
buying personal computers on their own. And we
are developing applications software for micro¬
computers. For example, we are trying to take a
portion of a program that needs a network, and do
some of the calculations locally. The part that
requires a large computer is transferred to the
network, calculated and sent back to the micro.”
A Change Of Emphasis In
Commercial Time-Sharing
The coming wave of small computers will force
time sharing companies to adapt or go under. “I
see time-sharing networks becoming a means for
storing and forwarding information,” said Otto
Hammer. “We will use the network to transfer data
that needs to be shared. And, after we have
developed software, we will use the network to
send it to our clients’ computers, and to update
and revise that software. Time-sharing will also be
widely used for data base applications where you
need central information that can be accessed by
all the small computers.”
“Time-sharing will continue to be valuable to first¬
time computer users,” added Richard Dumas.
“Those individuals won’t know what software to
buy. They will still turn to time-sharing companies
for proven software and for hand-holding support.
Likewise, there are still a lot of things a
microcomputer can’t do—sophisticated manufac¬
turing control or order entry, for example.”
“Commercial time-sharing is not going to dis¬
appear,” said Phil Sussman, “but the nature of its
services will change. It will continue to be used to
access large external data bases, for massive
computer power by firms that don’t want a large
system in-house, and for individuals who want to
rely on others for software development. Indeed,
time sharing will probably move more and more
into consulting services.”
continued on page 51
Interactive Computing
Page 42
ACU Members Give Advice:
How To Prepare For The Coming Changes
The previous article described developments computer users can expect during the next 12 to 24 months.
The next question is: How do I prepare for those changes? Or better yet: How can I take advantage of
them? After asking our panel for predictions , we asked them what they were doing to prepare themselves.
Where did they plan to concentrate their efforts in 1982? What advice did they have for other computer
users? Here are some of their suggestions.
Jump On the Small Computer Bandwagon
Regardless of your area—large computers, time-sharing,
word processing—small computers will make an impact
during the next year. Our panel agreed that it is time to
take microcomputers seriously. “You have to take a
look at what your people are doing with large computers
and time-sharing now, then decide if it is still the most
cost-effective way,” advised Philip Sussman. “Often, a
small computer will offer immediate savings.”
“On the other hand,” he warned, “there are some trade¬
offs to small computers. You certainly spend less money
if you get a small computer to replace certain time¬
sharing applications, but there are hidden costs to in-
house equipment. If you use timesharing, someone else
does the maintaining. If you use your own machine, you
become your own support group and you become
responsible for every task. Still, you should look at
everything you are doing or want to do and decide if a
small computer would be more cost-effective.”
Get Control Of Computer Proliferation
Once you are on the small computer bandwagon, our
panel members warned, somebody must take the reins.
“You do need to distribute the computing load,” said
Aram Bedrosian, “but the DP department must be
ready to face the onslaught of distributed processing
and small computers. If you don’t control it quickly
enough, you are going to have many incompatible
computers out there. You’ll have a mess trying to
maintain them and communicate between them.”
“Many users see small computers and distributed
processing as a method of solving their data processing
problems,” commented William LaRocque. “They jump
for something they see on TV. But that leads to users
buying gear and then saying ‘What am I going to do with
it?!’ They become very disappointed when they find they
can’t use their new toys to link up with the central
computer to get information.”
“The data processing department has to be sensitive to
the trend toward small computers, and plan for it,”
LaRocque said. “Headquarters should set the stan¬
dards. The users should decide what they want, then go
to the technical people, who will help them figure the
best way to do it.”
Shop With Communications In Mind
“Before you buy hardware, ensure that it can be linked
to a host computer or to other small computers,”
suggested Aram Bedrosian. “It is not enough any more
to justify new equipment on a standalone basis. If it
doesn’t communicate it won’t do you much good,
because very quickly the day will come when you have
to link it up.”
“Whenever we look at hardware, software or new
applications, we consider the communications po¬
tential,” emphasized Ankarath Unni. “The user must do
this largely on his own right now. There is not a lot of
knowledge in the field. There are 150 vendors with
different systems flying around, but when you ask them
about networking or communications or electronic mail
they don’t really have the answers for you.”
Shop With Standards In Mind
More and more companies are setting a networking
strategy and demanding that new equipment conform. If
your firm hasn’t taken this step yet, now is the time. For
example, at Sun Production Company, said Unni, “we
have definitely adapted SNA as the standard. We
investigate the networking capability before we buy. We
won’t look at hardware that isn’t SNA compatible.”
Expand Into Decision Support
“It’s not just what people are doing with computers now,
but what people should be doing with them,” said Philip
Sussman. “You must become an advocate for using
computers to help managers in the decision-making
process—it is crucial in order for computers to fully pay
off. Those of us with computer know-how have a
massive education job.”
“Decision support should be a major concern for many
computer users,” said Ankarath Unni, who advocates
“more use of computers for helping managers make
February 1982
Page 43
day-to-day decisions, not just for clerical work. We
should make it easier for users to get to the data they
need with things like user-oriented databases, and
packages for modeling and graphics.”
Speed Up Software Development
“Here at TWA,” said Aram Bedrosian, “we are facing a
reduction in force, yet our DP requirements are as high
or higher. We must find ways to get more out of our DP
people. We must aggressively move into such things as
friendly languages and packages that can be installed
quickly. We need to put more information retrieval
functions into the hands of users to minimize the
amount of programming.”
“We must find better software development tools,”
suggested Otto Hammer. “The traditional languages
don’t do as effective a job as some of the newer
structured languages and the database languages. We
must continue to look for ways to provide more reliable
software that requires less maintenance.”
“The tools for developing software haven’t changed
much,” agreed William LaRocque. “It takes too long to
respond to user requests. Moreover, we spend far too
much time keeping old applications running or changing
them slightly. We must get users in touch in a
convenient way with their own files and information.
The majority of user requests are quite simple. We must
turn to database management systems, applications
generators, and software packages.”
Investigate Database Management Systems
“Even smaller companies should be keeping their eyes
open for database management systems,” said Melvin
Nimer. “It is a big move for a small company, but most
of them are looking for software that you don’t have to
fuss with, that you don’t have to hire programmers to
change. A good DBMS can do 90 percent of what you
want to do without requiring outside programming.”
“You have to be careful, though,” he warned. “Most
DBMS’s have a high overhead and are not efficient.
Shop carefully and don’t believe everything the
salesmen tell you. Talk to users.”
“Familiarize yourself with database management sys¬
tems,” repeated William LaRocque, “but don’t buy the
solution before defining the problem. Remember—
DBMS’s were heralded years ago as the ultimate
answer, but their performance and acceptance have
“Noty, Gentlemen , what we're shooting for
is clarity and precision .”
been disappointing. The majority of users still don’t use
them.”
“I think, though, that this will be changing. Much of the
movement toward database management may come
from the minicomputer world, since many of them now
have modestly priced DBMS packages available.”
Fight For Every Employee
Don’t forget people problems as you prepare yourself
for change. “As these changes take place,” predicted
Robert Jarcik, “one of the biggest challenges will be to
maintain the staff and its quality. DP expertise has
gotten to be very expensive and hard to find.”
“I have four people in my shop now, and the cost is
running much more than I should pay, but I can’t afford
to let them go. It would be too hard for me to compete
with the larger firms in the area for replacements. A
smaller company must fight for every employee—fight
to find and hire the right ones, then fight to keep them.”
Be Concerned With Reliability
“With falling prices and all the new developments, many
people are too concerned with bells and whistles and
not concerned enough with reliability,” said Arno Laur.
“I think one of the biggest headaches is to make sure
the system you put up today will be reliable tomorrow.”
“I am concerned whether IBM’s cost/performance will
stand up,” he continued. “With hardware costs coming
down, is IBM still going to provide the same level of
hardware and support? There is not enough information
available about the reliability of the various systems, so
users must keep their ears to the ground and talk to
each other.”
July/August 1981
Page 3
contracts; they can write their own. They don’t
have to rely on vendors’ claims; they can refer to
ACU’s independent Benchmark Reports. They
don’t have to buy from the first dealer that comes
along; they have many choices (recent ACU
newsletters have given tips on weeding the good
from the bad). In short, users are realizing that
they don’t have to take it any more, and are
jumping on the consumerism bandwagon in
growing numbers.
What’s the price of a ticket? We may be
prejudiced, but we think one of the best bargains in
town is a membership in ACU. We believe our
Benchmark Reports, our journal and our news¬
letters are far and away the most consumer-
oriented, useful computer-related publications a-
vailable. Joining together with other users in ACU
is a good way to keep your computer efforts on
track.
All aboard! You don’t have to take it anymore.
hs
Interactive Computing
Page 4
Should IBM Be Split Up? What’s Best For Users? by Jesse Berst
Computer consumers have been hearing about the antitrust problems of IBM for many years—for well over
a decade, in fact, since the U.S. government first charged the firm with violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. We often read of new lawsuits, legal maneuvers, trial delays and so on. But we rarely see anything
written from the user point of view.
There is probably no single issue that is as important to computer users and at the same time so
misunderstood. Few of us even know what IBM is accused of; or if the charges are justified; or what we
should be doing about it. This article fills the gap; again, from the user point of view.
International Business Machines (IBM) is the
world’s largest computer company. You knew that
already, right? And you probably knew that its
influence permeates every field of computer
endeavor, no matter how large, how small, how
specialized. Indeed, certain individuals believe that
only IBM can make a new area “respectable.” Until
the industry giant blesses a new territory with its
presence, many people won’t take it seriously;
witness such things as mini-computers for general
applications, computer graphics for business, CRT-
oriented word processing, computer stores and
even small business computers.
Here’s the rub: some people believe IBM arrived at
its position of power at the expense of other
computer manufacturers and—more to the point in
this discussion—at the expense of computer
users. The U.S. government has filed suit, claiming
the firm has crushed competition, slowed the pace
of innovation and held prices artificially high.
The outcome is vitally important to users. The IBM
antitrust issue will affect how much they pay for
computers in the future, and, moreover, it may
decide whether the computers they buy carry
American names like IBM and Burroughs instead
of ones like Hitachi and Fujitsu.
Users, then, have a stake in finding out more about
the matter. Are the claims against IBM justified? If
so, what can we do to protect ourselves against the
company’s unfair practices? The Justice Depart¬
ment has suggested that the answer lies in splitting
IBM up into separate companies, and for the last
twelve years it has been trying to do just that. Yet
a breakup may not be the best solution. That’s not
to say, however, that there is nothing users can do
on their own behalf. In this article, we will examine
the pros and cons of splitting IBM and also
consider some alternatives.
Before looking for solutions, however, we need to
examine the problem a bit more carefully. IBM is a
big target and its enemies have accused it of many
crimes over the years, too many to catalog here.
Still, in our talks with users and industry insiders
we noticed three basic themes. Before we go on to
talk about possible solutions, let’s zero in on these
three accusations to see when—or, indeed, if —
they pose a genuine threat to users.
“IBM Manipulates The Marketplace
To Squeeze Out Competitors”
Twenty-four private antitrust suits have been
brought against IBM since 1968. Many have
complained about the same type of problem as the
Government’s case: that IBM’s primary motive in
product announcements and price-cutting is to
bring about losses to other firms. Other suits have
similarly alleged that the firm holds back infor¬
mation about new features and equipment so that
other companies don’t have an equal opportunity
to develop competing products.
Hard-Where?
IBM has been hearing these complaints almost
from its very first days. Competitors have
repeatedly accused it of announcing new hardware
long before it can actually deliver. Other sellers are
July/August 1981
Page 5
stuck with machines that are suddenly obsolete
because customers are waiting for the new IBM
product. A related strategy is that of setting prices
artificially low. Price reductions come from profits,
and IBM has more of those to play with than
anyone else in the game.
IBM’s introduction of its medium-sized 4300
machines in 1979 is a case in point. The computers
had an unexpectedly low price tag, which sent
shock waves through the rest of the industry.
Indeed, it may have hastened the departure of one
competitor from the market. Itel, suffering already
from poor management, couldn’t survive the
pressure generated by IBM’s move.
The accusations are not restricted to the main¬
frame market. Rivals have filed suits relating to
“Do you really think we’ve got a chance?”
Interactive Computing
Page 6
peripherals, supplies, accessories and software.
Third-party lessors also allege mistreatment. These
organizations buy new or used IBM computers,
then lease them to customers for less than the
price charged by IBM. They have long list of
grievances. They say, for example, that IBM
refuses to give them reasonable access to spare
parts, which makes it difficult for anyone but IBM
to repair the machines.
The list of specific charges goes on and on, but the
examples above give you an idea of the central
motif. Are these claims justified? One industry
observer told ACU he believes that IBM does
gauge its product announcements to do itself the
most good and its competitors the least. But, he
pointed out, almost all manufacturers use product
announcements as a marketing weapon. True,
IBM’s clout makes its actions much more devas¬
tating, but the industry giant may currently be at a
disadvantage in this marketing game. Earlier legal
decisions and settlements have made it more
difficult for IBM to make “informal” announce¬
ments until it is actually ready to take orders.
Do premature product announcements and similar
strategies harm users? Yes, if they are “fooled,” or
if they are locked into buying from IBM and denied
the chance to get a better deal on the open
marketplace. The verdict on accusation number
one: probably guilty in the past, but not of anything
other manufacturers don’t do; and less prone to do
it in today’s climate.
“IBM Uses Its Muscle To Push
Customers Around”
According to this accusation, IBM, from its
position of strength, makes unilateral decisions
about contracts, deliveries, and customer safety.
Consumer Complaints
It’s certainly true that IBM has been able to get
away with non-negotiable contracts that heavily
favor its interests at the expense of users’ rights.
For example, the Computer Dealers And Lessors
Association alleges that IBM has refused to pay
damages for failing to deliver promised machines,
even when it waits until the last minute to inform
customers. At the same time, it has required those
same customers to pay a cancellation fee if they
decide to drop their order. Buyers have had no
recourse.
At a recent National Retail Merchants Association
data processing conference attended by an ACU
representative, one retailer complained to a
seminar audience that IBM had used an “end-run
strategy” on him. When this mid-level manager
made it clear he intended to recommend another
make of computer, IBM reportedly attempted to
discredit him with top management, using its
power and prestige to make him appear unin¬
formed. The industry press has reported similar
allegations in Australia and Europe as well as
elsewhere in the U.S.
Perhaps IBM’s most blatant disregard for con¬
sumer rights is reflected in its treatment of the
possible cancer-causing effects of a chemical used
in some copiers and printers. As ACU president
Hillel Segal editorialized in the November 1980
ACU Bulletin, “We can think of no more damaging
indictment of a company’s operations than that
they do not adequately protect the public’s safety
in their product design. And we fully agree that
IBM’s marketing of these products, after their own
studies confirmed possible danger, must be labelled
irresponsible.”
The list of alleged abuses could go on and on, but
we have enough to arrive at a verdict: yes, IBM has
probably been irresponsible in their attention to
customers’ rights. Once again, however, it must be
pointed out that IBM is not alone in this, nor even
the worst offender. The recent rash of lawsuits
against computer manufacturers is ample evidence
that conditions are abysmal throughout the
industry.
July/August 1981
Page 7
“IBM Is Just Too Big—
And That’s Dangerous”
This charge stipulates that it doesn’t matter if IBM
is guilty of accusations one or two, or of any other
charges. The important point, they say, is that IBM
could do such things if it wanted to. Many
government lawyers feel that once a corporation
hits a certain size it is guilty until proven innocent.
Mere size, they contend, bestows monopoly
power—and there’s no such thing as a good
monopolist.
The Badness Of Bigness
There’s little question of IBM’s dominance of the
market. Harvard Professor Hendrik Houthakker, a
former member of the Justice Department’s team
who left because of disagreements, said as much in
a 1979 Wall Street Journal editorial: “There can be
The Climb To The Top—How IBM Became King Of The Hill
From its origins in the second decade of the 20th
Century as the Computer Tabulating and Recording
Co., a holding company that made everything from
adding machines to cheese slicers, IBM has grown to
become the largest producer in the computer industry.
Its early history was shaped by the patriarchal figure of
Thomas J. Watson, a former sales manager and
executive at the National Cash Register Co. (where he
experienced considerable antitrust problems) whose
Bible-thumping fundamentalism and evangelic style set
the tone of the corporation, which became famous for
the strict codes of conduct it imposed on its non-union
workforce. Watson would earn a place in business
history if for nothing else than the THINK signs he
ordered placed in IBM offices around the country.
A world leader in the production of tabulating
equipment, IBM was somewhat slow in latching on to
the advancing computer technology. Its first ventures in
that area, the Mark I and Mark II, utilized technology
that was made obsolete almost immediately by the
creation of the ENIAC at the University of
Pennsylvania, which used vacuum tubes. With this new
technology, Remington Rand’s Univac Division pro¬
duced the first commercial computer in the late 1940s.
In the mid-1950s, as Thomas Watson Jr. wrested
control of IBM from his father, the firm affiliated with
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in a
successful effort to catch up with Univac. However,
growing competition from such old standbys such as
General Electric and RCA, and newcomers like
Control Data Corp., forced IBM in the early 1960s to
take a bold step: the creation of the 360 series of
computers. A compatible, multiple model system using
advanced microcircuitry, the 360 computers cut the
cost of doing 100,000 calculations from over a dollar to
less than a nickel. As the first new generation of
computers, the 360 series revolutionized the industry
and firmly entrenched IBM as the market leader. The
fact that the 360 machines experienced many technical
problems led competitors to charge that they were
rushed on to the market for the sole purpose of
eliminating competition. That is still an issue in the
government’s antitrust suit against IBM.
Through the 1960s and ’70s, IBM evolved from a
company dominated by the style of old Thomas
Watson (who died in June 1956) into a huge,
multinational corporation. Today, there are no longer
any Watsons on the Board of Directors or in
management positions. The impact of computers on
the financial world is immediately apparent from the
experience of IBM. It took the company 42 years to
achieve its first billion dollar year in 1957. A decade
later its sales approached $7 billion. In 1979 its
revenues were nearly $23 billion . . . nearly ten times
higher than that of its nearest competitor.
—Joe Kelly
Interactive Computing
Page 8
no serious doubt that IBM’s share of the
marketplace was and is about 70 percent, well
above the usual standards for monopoly.”
Although IBM denies it, most everyone else agrees
that the industry giant has all the power that this
monopoly position implies. “If they wanted to, they
could squeeze out all but two or three of the other
mainframe manufacturers,” comments Charles
Davidson, a veteran of 30 years in the industry and
professor of Computer Sciences at the University
of Wisconsin. He points out that cash-rich IBM
could support a money-losing operation for a long
period, simple “out-losing” its rivals.
Is it safe to have all that power concentrated in one
place? “Of course not!” responds Davidson. “We
are relying on their decision not to use that power.
It’s not healthy to know that if certain people make
certain decisions we’ll all be faced with drastic
changes.” But unhealthy isn’t necessarily the same
thing as illegal. The law doesn’t say you can’t be
big, just that you can’t use unfair methods to get
that way. Proving that IBM used foul means to
achieve its success is tough—after 12 years the
Justice Department still hasn’t succeeded. There
are plenty of strong emotions about the issue, but
little concrete evidence. As Houthakker put it: “We
get on more debatable ground when we ask
whether IBM’s monopoly was merely the result of
‘skill, industry and foresight’ or also of anti¬
competitive pressures.”
Could it be that we are merely accusing IBM of
being more successful than its competitors? Some
people think so, and they think the accusation is
unjust. Noted author and management consultant
Peter Drucker has gone on record as saying, “The
government’s suit is without merit because what
IBM is being charged with is the incompetence of
others. IBM’s great crime is not that it was a
monopolist or even that it was particularly bright,
but only that the others were so incompetent.”
From the user’s point of view, it seems hard to
argue that a firm should be punished because its
size gives it the potential to do harm. Granted,
IBM, with its massive resources, has a greater duty
of care than other computer companies. An anti¬
trust agreement that demanded higher standards
than from other companies would seem reason¬
able. But shouldn’t IBM be penalized when and if it
abuses its power rather than for success in getting
it?
The verdict on accusation number three: not guilty
for lack of evidence that big equals bad.
Solving The Problems
Although we rendered “verdicts” on the three
accusations above, we can’t really prove or
disprove the various charges brought against IBM.
Our purpose was to give you an understanding of
the kind of complaints most often made by IBM’s
customers and competitors.
As we saw, IBM probably doesn’t deserve the role
that some rivals and some Government attorneys
want to give it. It is not the industry’s archvillain.
Many of the accusations are overblown, and there
are other companies that seem to be worse in their
treatment of users. But let’s not be too quick to
dress the giant company in robes of pure white.
We came away from our conversations with users
and industry experts convinced that IBM has
certainly engaged in some questionable practices
over the years. With all that smoke, there’s bound
to be some fire.
How do we put out that fire? Let’s consider some
alternatives, beginning with the Justice Depart¬
ment’s proposal: divestiture (the legal term for
splitting up the company). Divestiture would mean
the division of IBM into three or more (the
Computer And Communications Industry Associa¬
tion once proposed 11) independent companies,
each with separate manufacturing facilities, sales
forces, executives and—most importantly—finan¬
cial resources.
July/August 1981
Page 9
The U.S. vs. IBM: History’s Most Expensive Lawsuit
Twelve double-spaced pages. That’s all that was
involved in the Justice Department’s initial 1969
complaint against IBM. Yet as the years progressed,
those twelve gave birth to thousands, then hundreds of
thousands, then millions of other pages. Along the way,
they’ve mushroomed into a monumental antitrust case
that portends fundamental changes in the American
judicial system.
How did the U.S. government and IBM end up mired in
this never-ending case? And what has been the result of
this twelve year marathon—besides fostering a big
increase in the number of rich lawyers?
The Justice Department had not fully completed its
investigation of IBM at the time of the original
complaint, but Attorney General Ramsey Clark
believed there was sufficient evidence to suggest a
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Besides, it was
the final day of the Johnson Administration; if Clark’s
team hadn’t filed then they would have lost their
chance.
Very little happened in the years immediately following
the filing. The new administration of Richard Nixon
didn’t want this orphan from the Johnson era; Nixon’s
team was ill-disposed to antitrust efforts, involving IBM
or anyone else. During this time, attorneys for both
sides spent much of their time wrangling over the
definition of the issues.
As the case evolved, IBM was accused of exercising a
monopoly over the computer industry and of obtaining
and preserving that position with anti-competitive
practices. Those practices, the government said,
included announcing the introduction of new products
before they were ready to deliver, in order to lessen the
demand for competitors’ machines by making them
seem obsolete; the bundling of hardware and software
(so customers had to buy one to get the other); and
unfair domination of the educational market (locking in
universities by supplying the first computer at very low
prices). Later the charges were amended to include
IBM’s activities against the so-called plug-compatible
manufacturers.
No wonder IBM came under suspicion; the industry
giant’s annual revenues are typically ten times higher
than those of its nearest competitor. Despite that
overwhelming advantage, IBM maintains that it faces
stiff competition from hundreds of companies in the
young and growing computer industry. Finally, on May
19, 1975, six years after the complaint was originally
filed, the trial that was supposed to decide who was
right got underway. At the time, observers predicted it
would last a year. Now, after six years, 15,000 exhibits
and 100,000 pages of trial transcript, it appears that
round one is coming to a close—with no settlement in
sight.
Why has it dragged on so long? Partly because the
issues are complicated. It’s not easy to define
“monopoly”, much less prove it exists. But the issues
aren’t as complicated as IBM’s lawyers have made
them, and here’s where the huge company has an
advantage over the government: competence. Tom
Barr, the firm’s lead attorney, has represented IBM
since the late 1960s. He has an intimate knowledge of
the industry and he can call on a huge staff. By contrast,
the government’s top man has changed three times; no
one remains who has been on the case since the
beginning. Even the most forgiving observers say that
the government has consistently mismanaged the case.
Bleak IBM
Even presuming that the trial finally ends this year, the
judge estimates he’ll need 12 months to review the
voluminous proceedings and render a decision. Then,
of course, the loser is almost certain to appeal. And if,
after appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, IBM
should finally lose, another trial must be conducted to
determine how the company should be penalized. In
fact, the whole mess reminds one of the case from the
Charles Dicken’s classic, Bleak House. In that case, all
the original litigants died and their descendants ran out
of money for attorneys’ fees before matters were finally
brought to a halt.
Thanks to Bleak IBM, the Sherman Antitrust Act will
never be the same. Yale professor Robert Bork told
Time magazine that the frustrating case is “the antitrust
division’s Vietnam.” Together with other endurance
contests like the AT&T matter, the case has proved so
unmanageable as to raise doubts if our courts can
resolve it. A dozen years; mountains of documents;
millions of dollars . . . it’s the most expensive case in
history. If anything, the IBM case has shown that
modern corporations are different than the robber
barons that prevailed in Sherman’s day. New laws and
new ways are needed to deal with them.
—Joe Kelly
Interactive Computing
Page 10
There is something to be said for splitting up IBM.
Much of the pricing turbulence and uncertainty
that has gripped users over the last 10 years stems
from cash-rich IBM being impervious to the market
considerations that rule other companies. Dives¬
titure might stop this, and bring prices down in the
bargain; the existence of competitive research
departments should spawn innovation and exert a
downward pressure on prices. And there’s another
reason to favor divestiture, or at least a continu¬
ation of the Government’s efforts in this direction:
experts believe that the threat of antitrust action
has kept IBM on its best behavior in recent years.
The Arguments Against Splitting
On the other hand, there are powerful arguments
against divestiture. In the opinion of many industry
analysts, the United States would not lead the
world in computers if it weren’t for IBM. Even the
Computer Dealer and Lessors Association, which
has been yelling long and loud for regulations to
limit IBM’s powers, argues against breaking the
company up. In a letter to the Justice Department,
the Association said it did not believe that “it would
be necessary, advisable nor in the best interests of
the data processing industry, including computer
‘consumers,’ to destroy or weaken IBM’s manu¬
facturing or research functions or split them up
into dwarf IBMs ...”
In addition, there is no hard evidence that splitting
IBM would solve the problems that users complain
of most. It could even make things worse, turning
loose several hungry IBM sharks instead of one
complacent IBM whale. And it certainly would have
no effect on other manufacturers who use unfair
tactics; they would be free to continue business as
usual. Furthermore, the accompanying story about
the trial points out that it will probably be many
years before there is any resolution. From the
user’s point of view, then, divestiture has little
value and even less chance of happening soon.
Other Solutions
Just because a break-up is not practical or
advisable does not mean that IBM should be left to
its own devices. Although most users and
competitors don’t believe in divestiture, they do
feel they should be protected against IBM’s undue
exploitation of its power.
What’s the best way to do that? There is one way
in which big government might help counter the
threat of big IBM: by compromising. To date, the
Justice Department has shown no willingness to
compromise. Yet many of IBM’s competitors don’t
even want divestiture. They want regulations and
consent decrees to enforce fair competition. Such
regulations would probably be more helpful to
users than splitting the company, and a compro¬
mise settlement would have the further advantage
of being attainable in the near future.
There are other partial answers. Professor Davidson
for one, advocates strong consumer protection,
particularly for contracts. “If a car came with as
many defects as the average computer system,” he
claims, “consumer advocates would be up in
arms!” Davidson’s suggestion has the advantage of
protecting users not only against IBM, but against
any manufacturer who attempts to take unfair
advantage of buyers.
We are seeing some progress in this area. A few
states have passed protective legislation, and
performance clauses in government agency con¬
tracts are leading the way toward less one¬
sided agreements. Although IBM has kicked and
screamed, it is beginning to rethink its previous
policy of refusing to bid on such contracts. Nor are
government agencies the only organizations that
are becoming more consumer-minded. Business
firms are becoming more aggressive about de¬
manding protective clauses in their contracts, and
are going to court to enforce those contracts if
necessary. Several newsletters and consulting firms
have sprung up that specialize in helping computer
buyers drive a hard bargain.
Still, when speaking of solutions, several experts
pointed out that users are ultimately their own best
protection—against any seller. Buyers should know
July/August 1981
Page 11
what to look for, should realize that there are
alternative machines available, should understand
that they don’t have to accept the standard
contract. With the wealth of available information
and the number of working consultants, there is
really no reason not to know what you are talking
about—or to hire someone who does —before you
sign on the dotted line. When knowledgeable
customers then band together—in users’ groups, in
organizations like ACU, in class-action lawsuits—
they can have real clout. The best assurance
against unfair treatment is a united watchdog
group of informed users.
The Future Of The Once King
So much for what should happen. What’s the
actual prognosis? Will IBM be split up? Not likely.
A decision is probably years away. Even if a
judgement were handed down tomorrow, IBM has
the legal resources to postpone implementation for
years through appeals. It looks as if IBM will
survive the attacks of the trustbusters, and
continue as the world’s number one computer
company. Although signs indicate that King
Computer is slowly slipping from the throne, the
organization has what it takes to stay on top for a
long time to come.
While it is there, it will probably continue to be
both one of the best and one of the worst of the
vendors. At its best it offers the ultimate in
customer hand-holding. At its worse, it becomes
high-handed instead. Our closer look at the IBM
case has revealed that some of the accusations
against the world’s largest computer company are
unfounded; in other cases it may well have
exploited its dominant position. But we also saw
that splitting the company up is unlikely to provide
users any relief. Other solutions have more
practical benefits for computer consumers.
CORPORATE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Altos Computer Systems, Inc.
American Computer Group
Billings Energy Corporation
Burroughs Corporation
Capex Corporation
Citishare-Citibank N.A.
Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc.
Cromemco Incorporated
Datanetwork, Honeywell, Inc.
Datapoint Corporation
Digital Equipment Corporation
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.
I.P. Sharp Associates, Ltd.
Litton Computer Services
Mercator Business Systems
Microdata Corporation
NEC Information Systems, Inc.
North Star Computers, Inc.
Pertec Computer Corp.
Quodata Corporation
Q1 Corporation
R.A.I.R., Inc.
Radio Shack Division of Tandy Corp.
Rapidata, Inc.
SD Systems
STSC, Inc.
Tandem Computers Incorp.
TeleVideo Systems, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorp.
Ultimate Corporation
Vector Graphic
Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Warner Computer Systems
Zenith Data Systems
Companies supplying computing products or services
are eligible to apply for Corporate Associate Member¬
ship by writing to the Association.
Association of Computer Users — Chapters, Local Contacts and Special Interest Contacts
ALABAMA
Winston Brooke
Anniston — TSS Local Contact
Brooke, Freeman, Berry & McBrayer
(205) 238-1040
ALBERTA
Brian McCullough
Sherwood Park — HHS Local Contact
(403) 464-5069
CALIFORNIA
Richard Dumas
Mountain View — TSS Local Contact
Commodity Research Institute
(415) 941-4646
Henry Huta
Century City - SCS, MCS, & HHS
Local Contact
Price Waterhouse & Co.
(213) 553-6030
Durward P. Jackson
Lancaster — SCS & MCS Local Contact
(805) 942-2526
Herbert L. LaBin
Bellflower — SCS & HHS Local Contact
(213) 868-5329
Roger Levit
Santa Rosa — HHS & SCS Local Contact
(707) 538-1319
Frank Slaton
San Bernardino — TSS Local Contact
California State College
(714) 887-7293
CONNECTICUT
Frank Chew
Greenwich — TSS Local Contact
Amax, Inc.
(203) 622-2824
DELAWARE
A. M. Kneitel
Wilmington — TSS, SCS, DPS and
WPS Local Contact
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
(302) 774-3866
FLORIDA
William A. Rousseau
Pompano Beach — TSS Local Contact
Alpine Engineered Products, Inc.
(305) 781-3333
J. L. VanGoethem
Miami — DPS Local Contact
Ryder System, Inc.
(305) 593-3726
ILLINOIS
Leon Stevens
Chicago — SCS & TSS Local Contact
Standard Oil Company
(312) 856-6689
John A. Koziol
Chicago — TSS & SCS Local Contact
Continental Materials Corp.
(312) 565-0100
IOWA
Roger Berger
Ames — SCS Local Contact
Iowa State University
(515) 294-1682
MASSACHUSETTS
* Stuart Lipoff
Boston — SCS Chairman and
Special Interest Contact for
Software Standards
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
(617) 864-5770
METRO WASHINGTON, DC.
* Thomas M. Kurihara — WPS Chairman
ACU Representative on the
ANSI Committee X3
U.S. Dept, of Transportation
(202) 755-1771
William V. La Rocque
Washington — MCS Local Contact
National Academy of Sciences
(202) 389-6129
MICHIGAN
Tom Hunt
Cadillac — TSS Local Contact
Kysor Industrial Corp.
(616) 775-4646
* Larry G Leslie
Kalamazoo — TSS Chairman
and Special Interest Contact for
Time-Sharing Administrators
Upjohn Company
(616) 323-6260
NETHERLANDS
Andre de La Porte, G.
Heemstede — APL Special Interest Contact;
TSS and HHS Local Contact
The Netherlands
(31)-(0)20-493625
NEW JERSEY
Bennet Meyer
Wayne — SCS Local Contact
Singer-Kearfott
(201) 256-4000
Samuel A. Scharff
Englewood — SCS Local Contact
Consulting Engineer
(201) 569-8332
NEW YORK
Dr. Dina Bedi
Special Interest Contact for
Educational Applications
Baruch College
(212) 725-3196
* Aram Bedrosian
New York—DPS Chairman
Trans World Airlines
(212) 557-3082
Edward W. Falsetti
Lockport — SCS Local Contact
Mesch Engineering, P.C.
(716) 433-6749
Terri Gendron
Briarcliff Manor — TSS Local Contact
Phillips Laboratories
(914) 762-0300
Arno Laur
New York — LCS Local Contact
Maritime Overseas Corp.
(212) 578-1737
Samuel Leonard
Elmira — TSS Local Contact
Thatcher Glass Mfg. Co.
(607) 737-3459
Philip N. Sussman
New York City — TSS & SCS Local Contact
International Paper Company
(212) 536-7373
NEW YORK CITY CHAPTER
Executive Board:
► Aram Bedrosian
TWA
Bion Bierer
Bristol Myers
Victor Bittman
Chase Manhattan
Charles Browning
Phelps Dodge
Dennis Callahan
Goldman Sachs & Co.
Chester Frankfeldt
American Express Co.
Alan Kornbluth
American Express
Susan McCain
Morgan Guaranty
Arthur Schneyman
Mobil Oil
Philip Sussman
International Paper Co.
OHIO
Dennis Bender
Cincinnati — TSS Local Contact
Procter & Gamble
(513) 562-2469
Otto Hammer
Cleveland — DPS Local Contact
Ernst & Whinney
(216) 861-5000
* Howard Tureff
Cleveland — LCS Chairman
Gould, Inc. Ocean Sys. Div.
(216) 486-8300
ONTARIO
* David Wilson
Toronto — HHS Chairman, and
TSS and SCS Local Contact
Touche Ross & Co.
(416) 364-7188
PENNSYLVANIA
Dale Hummer
Pittsburgh — TSS Local Contact
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(412) 273-6169
D. T. Wu
Philadelphia — TSS Local Contact
DuPont De Nemours & Co.
(215) 339-6307
TEXAS
Ralph N. Bussard
Houston — TSS & SCS Local Contact
Price Waterhouse & Company
(713) 654-4100
Robert A. Jarcik
Austin — LCS Local Contact
Boon-Chapman Insurance Mgrs.
(512) 454-2681
* Ankarath Unni
Dallas — MCS Chairman
Sun Production Company
(214) 739-9301
UTAH
Jack C. Harris
Provo — HHS Local Contact
Special Interest Contact for
Educational & Consumer Applications
Brigham Young University
Melvin D. Nimer
Salt Lake City — MCS Local Contact
Granite Mill Fixture Co.
(801) 521-3222
VIRGINIA
John Hudson
Danville — TSS & SCS Local Contact
Dan River Inc.
(804) 799-7305
WASHINGTON STATE
Warren Fuller
Greenbank — SCS & MCS Local Contact
Five Center Want Ads
(206) 321-5000
WISCONSIN
Anil K. Bhala
Green Bay — SCS Local Contact
L. D. Schreiber Cheese Co.
(414) 437-7601
Richard Faherty
Wausau — SCS Local Contact
Wipfli, Ullrich & Co., CPA’s
(715) 845-3111
John J. Stewart
Wausau — SCS Local Contact
Van Ert Electric Co., Inc.
(715) 845-4308
Paul Thoppil
Milwaukee — TSS Local Contact
RTE Corporation
(414) 547-1251
LOCAL CONTACTS WANTED
Become a local contact for your
area. Your name and telephone
number will be listed on this page in
each issue of Interactive Computing
enabling other members to contact
you with their questions. Only users,
not suppliers, are eligible to apply by
writing to the Association. Please
specify which of the following
Sections you would like to serve for:
• Time-Sharing Section
• Small Computer Section
• Midi Computer Section
• Large Computer Section
• Distributed Processing
• Word Processing Section
• Home and Hobbyist Section
*Elected Board of Directors, in
addition to officers listed below.
ACU OFFICERS: Hillel Segal, President; David Wilson, Vice President; Martin Neville, Secretary; Larry Leslie, Treasurer
Interactive Computing •
Published every other month by ACU Research and Education Division, Inc., an affiliate
of the Association of Computer Users, Inc., Copyright 1981, P.O. Box 9003, Boulder CO
80301, Telephone (303) 443-3600. Second Class postage paid at Boulder CO 80302.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11